Copyright, parts re-use and a proposal?
- Thread starter gordy
- Start date
Help Support planetFigure:
joegabo
Active Member
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
Hello,
Well the way I see it is if you are truly an artist and have pride, you would just sculpt your own parts.
If you are just out for a quick build/buck and do not care all that much about what "you" have created, just hack up someone else's work and call it your own.
Its a sad world we live in when its all about production and bottom line.
Take care,
Joe
Hello,
Well the way I see it is if you are truly an artist and have pride, you would just sculpt your own parts.
If you are just out for a quick build/buck and do not care all that much about what "you" have created, just hack up someone else's work and call it your own.
Its a sad world we live in when its all about production and bottom line.
Take care,
Joe
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,568
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
It would probably work better if it were a 50 copy license instead of 50 actual heads, and the figure manufacturer would have to show how the head is going to be used and any modifications done to it. Since the figure manufacturer is casting the rest of the figure, you would probably want the head to be cast by them as well, to match the rest of the kit as closely as possible. Some figs of course have heads cast as part of the body, so 50 individual heads wouldn't be useful in that case, and most stock heads are converted to some degree anyhow. Sounds like a doable thing to me.
It would probably work better if it were a 50 copy license instead of 50 actual heads, and the figure manufacturer would have to show how the head is going to be used and any modifications done to it. Since the figure manufacturer is casting the rest of the figure, you would probably want the head to be cast by them as well, to match the rest of the kit as closely as possible. Some figs of course have heads cast as part of the body, so 50 individual heads wouldn't be useful in that case, and most stock heads are converted to some degree anyhow. Sounds like a doable thing to me.
FigureLover
A Fixture
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
On the topic of copyright and licensing, whats to stop a manufacturer of the real item, weapon or uniform, claiming copyright laws against a sculptor?
It might sound silly, but apparently Tamiya were hit years ago for the logos on their wheels for F1 cars, and they also have paid for licencing to General Dynamics for their latest F-16 kit. I have also heard that they dont like doing modern US vehicles because of the extra cost as well.
I mean where does it end and how far can you go before licencing rears its head
Ben
On the topic of copyright and licensing, whats to stop a manufacturer of the real item, weapon or uniform, claiming copyright laws against a sculptor?
It might sound silly, but apparently Tamiya were hit years ago for the logos on their wheels for F1 cars, and they also have paid for licencing to General Dynamics for their latest F-16 kit. I have also heard that they dont like doing modern US vehicles because of the extra cost as well.
I mean where does it end and how far can you go before licencing rears its head
Ben
1969
A Fixture
John Long
A Fixture
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2003
- Messages
- 1,500
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
What made me think of it was a Nemrod paratrooper kit I bought years ago. Instead of a resin copy of a DML weapon, there was an injection molded weapon with portions of the sprue still attached. Nemrod had to have bought several plastic sprues with this weapon and clipped them loose to include with the kit. When I first began this hobby, I bought a couple of Belgo kits. They didn't have any weapons, the instructions directed you to use a weapon from a Tamiya figure kit, IIRC.
What made me think of it was a Nemrod paratrooper kit I bought years ago. Instead of a resin copy of a DML weapon, there was an injection molded weapon with portions of the sprue still attached. Nemrod had to have bought several plastic sprues with this weapon and clipped them loose to include with the kit. When I first began this hobby, I bought a couple of Belgo kits. They didn't have any weapons, the instructions directed you to use a weapon from a Tamiya figure kit, IIRC.
T50
A Fixture
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 2,035
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
Nice!
I would like to see:
German - Panzerbüsche 39, FG42, GEW41,
Russian - PPsh
US - M1 Carbine, Tommy gun
Brit - uh... the one they had forever... what's the name again?
Nice!
I would like to see:
German - Panzerbüsche 39, FG42, GEW41,
Russian - PPsh
US - M1 Carbine, Tommy gun
Brit - uh... the one they had forever... what's the name again?
1969
A Fixture
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
All these are on my list bar the Panzerbüsche 39, had to google that just to find out what it is, is now added to list.
Brit one... would that be the Sten ? will be covering all models of that one.
Cheers
Steve
All these are on my list bar the Panzerbüsche 39, had to google that just to find out what it is, is now added to list.
Brit one... would that be the Sten ? will be covering all models of that one.
Cheers
Steve
bonehead
A Fixture
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?
Gordy,
Baloney. I am with renarts and the others on this one. Nobody pays me extra for all the effort it takes to make a good weapon or equipment. It takes time to do and if it is only part of the "usual" fee for a figure, I am NEVER compensated for all that extra time - ever.
Many of my figures involve making no equipment at all. Do you think that is an accident? Not at all. It is because those are the only figures that I receive anything like adequate compensation for my time. If I can re-use some parts from some of my older sculpts, or proprietary parts, like say an Alpine rifle for a figure i am planning to do for them, then I can do something little more complex without taking a beating on the payment at the tail-end.
I have about reached the limit of what my clients are willing to pay me, yet I still have to scramble at the end of the month to pay the rent - pretty much every month. I am not getting rich doing this. I am not getting a savings account either. Hell, I could probably do better working at a restaurant. Seriously. I have thought about it often the past few years.
So tell me, when do I get compensated for this stuff?
People have always plagiarized my parts. If everybody who uses my stuff paid me a royalty, then maybe you would have a good point. Nobody pays me any extra for this stuff - even the first time out. So anybody who uses this stuff is making out on my labor and I am getting squat for it.
End of story.
Tell me where or when i ever win on this? It is a rhetorical question, but that answer would be - never.
For a full-time professional sculptor like me, this is a lose - lose proposition regardless, unless my clients are giving me equipment to use. And, if the stuff is not up to snuff (more often than not), then I have to rework it anyway.
Mike
Gordy,
Baloney. I am with renarts and the others on this one. Nobody pays me extra for all the effort it takes to make a good weapon or equipment. It takes time to do and if it is only part of the "usual" fee for a figure, I am NEVER compensated for all that extra time - ever.
Many of my figures involve making no equipment at all. Do you think that is an accident? Not at all. It is because those are the only figures that I receive anything like adequate compensation for my time. If I can re-use some parts from some of my older sculpts, or proprietary parts, like say an Alpine rifle for a figure i am planning to do for them, then I can do something little more complex without taking a beating on the payment at the tail-end.
I have about reached the limit of what my clients are willing to pay me, yet I still have to scramble at the end of the month to pay the rent - pretty much every month. I am not getting rich doing this. I am not getting a savings account either. Hell, I could probably do better working at a restaurant. Seriously. I have thought about it often the past few years.
So tell me, when do I get compensated for this stuff?
People have always plagiarized my parts. If everybody who uses my stuff paid me a royalty, then maybe you would have a good point. Nobody pays me any extra for this stuff - even the first time out. So anybody who uses this stuff is making out on my labor and I am getting squat for it.
End of story.
Tell me where or when i ever win on this? It is a rhetorical question, but that answer would be - never.
For a full-time professional sculptor like me, this is a lose - lose proposition regardless, unless my clients are giving me equipment to use. And, if the stuff is not up to snuff (more often than not), then I have to rework it anyway.
Mike
renarts
A Fixture
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
This is a very interesting topic, thanks Gordy for cutting this new trail.
In response to the comment regarding Andrea's end run around copyright concerns and pop culture, in 1985, when California passed a Celebrities Rights Act (with a sub-section known as the "Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act," designed to block TV commercials similar to one that showed Fred Astaire dancing with a brand of vacuum cleaner instead of Ginger Rogers), these folks have had a legal case.
Nineteen states have laws that in some way protect the right of celebrities to demand a fee from anyone who uses their image for any commercial purpose. The California law, which is something of a model, allows a celebrity to sue for damages if the unlicensed image hurts his or her reputation in some specific way, but it also allows them to garnish whatever profits the artist or vendor made from the image and to apply for an injunction to stop any activity that treads on their "right of publicity."
Another 11 states recognize the right of publicity through common law, meaning there is some precedent in the state courts for protecting the public use of anyone's image. New Jersey and New York both recognize this right, but to a much lesser extent than California law. (The local precedent goes back to the ¤'30s and is designed to prevent an advertiser from using anyone's picture to sell a product without that person's approval.)
Since 1985, the California Legislature has passed a number of amendments, like the one in 2007 with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's support, that extended the right of publicity for up to 70 years after the celebrity's death. (It has been set at 50 years before that, and, as with copyright legislation, the date keeps being extended every few years to meet the needs of the merchandisers.) These laws are applicable only within the state's borders, so an artist would have to have a public show in the state before he or she could be sued.
In 2007, the Monroe estate tried to use existing New York state law to stop the sale of posters and other chotchkes bearing her likeness, but they lost in the courts. So the New York State Legislature is considering its own copycat celebrity protection act, sponsored by state Sen. Martin Golden and Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein, chairwoman of the Standing Committee on the Judiciary, which may come to a vote this winter or spring. It, too, stipulates a right held for 70 years after death. Like the California law, it includes an exception for any "play, book, magazine, newspaper, motion picture, musical composition ... single and original work of art, work of political or newsworthy value," a clause intended to shield any First Amendment-protected use of a celebrity's "name, portrait, voice, signature or picture."
But the catch lies in the terms "single and original work of art.", under the law an artist can paint or sculpt Monroe once -- but only once.
I think this is purely a case of Andrea flying under the radar. The titles are changed because the names of the characters or the use of the term Star Wars etc. in a direct relation to the product is definitely protected.
There is a sort of capriciousness though about the whole thing and the courts which in my mind makes little sense. The counterintuitive weirdness of celebrity protection acts is already fairly evident in the two California Supreme Court judgments on that state's law; both limited the impact of the statute in different ways. The first, brought in 2001 by the heirs of the Three Stooges against artist Gary Saderup, involved respectful, charcoal drawings of Moe, Larry and Curly that Saderup converted into lithographs and T-shirts. The court ruled Saderup had to have written permission from the Stooges' estates to do that.
But in 2003, the court ruled that DC Comics could publish a five-part comic book series, "Jonah Hex," which featured two albino musician characters named Johnny and Edgar "Autumn." One wore the distinctive top hat favored by Johnny Winter, who together with Edgar are probably the most famous albino brothers in rock music. The storyline was a fantastic melange of Pop gags and horror fiction, in which the Autumn brothers are half-human offspring of a supernatural worm who "engage in wanton acts of violence, murder and bestiality."
That was okay by the court because "the creative appropriation of celebrity images can be an important avenue of individual expression."
See.....no sense.
There is a certain hypocrisy in the figure world. In this thread alone as well as others there have been cases of some folks saying they see it as ok to use other companies products to enhance or to expedite their own projects for commercial consideration. The only real hesitation seems to be the risk of pursuit of legal action or the friendly association between owner/creator and "borrower". There is always a clever or seemingly justified reasoning behind the use of these items and yet there is an outcry when it comes to piracy or counterfeits. Part is ok but whole is wrong? Altered images are wrong (al la RB models and Taesung) but an arm or leg or weapon is ok? And I'm not talking about one offs, or even 3 or 4 to flesh out a one off vignette or diorama but production work. Everyone wants something for their work. Sculptors want to be compensated for their work and make their money on time and product. They can increase their income if they can keep their work time to a minimum and produce more. But the trade off is that in order for them to make a fair wage, they have to bump the price, their justification for this is that the producing company gets to make unit costs down the line (even though they take the risk, marketing, production and packaging)
The idea of a license free product is a wonderful one. And I would like to see it work out. Maybe its a case of over thinking it and that is the only reason it hasn't happened before. Frankly though, I see it a more viable option to have a company create a good product and sell licensing of production and use. The incentive remains to produce a good product and everyone down the line is happy.
This is a very interesting topic, thanks Gordy for cutting this new trail.
In response to the comment regarding Andrea's end run around copyright concerns and pop culture, in 1985, when California passed a Celebrities Rights Act (with a sub-section known as the "Astaire Celebrity Image Protection Act," designed to block TV commercials similar to one that showed Fred Astaire dancing with a brand of vacuum cleaner instead of Ginger Rogers), these folks have had a legal case.
Nineteen states have laws that in some way protect the right of celebrities to demand a fee from anyone who uses their image for any commercial purpose. The California law, which is something of a model, allows a celebrity to sue for damages if the unlicensed image hurts his or her reputation in some specific way, but it also allows them to garnish whatever profits the artist or vendor made from the image and to apply for an injunction to stop any activity that treads on their "right of publicity."
Another 11 states recognize the right of publicity through common law, meaning there is some precedent in the state courts for protecting the public use of anyone's image. New Jersey and New York both recognize this right, but to a much lesser extent than California law. (The local precedent goes back to the ¤'30s and is designed to prevent an advertiser from using anyone's picture to sell a product without that person's approval.)
Since 1985, the California Legislature has passed a number of amendments, like the one in 2007 with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's support, that extended the right of publicity for up to 70 years after the celebrity's death. (It has been set at 50 years before that, and, as with copyright legislation, the date keeps being extended every few years to meet the needs of the merchandisers.) These laws are applicable only within the state's borders, so an artist would have to have a public show in the state before he or she could be sued.
In 2007, the Monroe estate tried to use existing New York state law to stop the sale of posters and other chotchkes bearing her likeness, but they lost in the courts. So the New York State Legislature is considering its own copycat celebrity protection act, sponsored by state Sen. Martin Golden and Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein, chairwoman of the Standing Committee on the Judiciary, which may come to a vote this winter or spring. It, too, stipulates a right held for 70 years after death. Like the California law, it includes an exception for any "play, book, magazine, newspaper, motion picture, musical composition ... single and original work of art, work of political or newsworthy value," a clause intended to shield any First Amendment-protected use of a celebrity's "name, portrait, voice, signature or picture."
But the catch lies in the terms "single and original work of art.", under the law an artist can paint or sculpt Monroe once -- but only once.
I think this is purely a case of Andrea flying under the radar. The titles are changed because the names of the characters or the use of the term Star Wars etc. in a direct relation to the product is definitely protected.
There is a sort of capriciousness though about the whole thing and the courts which in my mind makes little sense. The counterintuitive weirdness of celebrity protection acts is already fairly evident in the two California Supreme Court judgments on that state's law; both limited the impact of the statute in different ways. The first, brought in 2001 by the heirs of the Three Stooges against artist Gary Saderup, involved respectful, charcoal drawings of Moe, Larry and Curly that Saderup converted into lithographs and T-shirts. The court ruled Saderup had to have written permission from the Stooges' estates to do that.
But in 2003, the court ruled that DC Comics could publish a five-part comic book series, "Jonah Hex," which featured two albino musician characters named Johnny and Edgar "Autumn." One wore the distinctive top hat favored by Johnny Winter, who together with Edgar are probably the most famous albino brothers in rock music. The storyline was a fantastic melange of Pop gags and horror fiction, in which the Autumn brothers are half-human offspring of a supernatural worm who "engage in wanton acts of violence, murder and bestiality."
That was okay by the court because "the creative appropriation of celebrity images can be an important avenue of individual expression."
See.....no sense.
There is a certain hypocrisy in the figure world. In this thread alone as well as others there have been cases of some folks saying they see it as ok to use other companies products to enhance or to expedite their own projects for commercial consideration. The only real hesitation seems to be the risk of pursuit of legal action or the friendly association between owner/creator and "borrower". There is always a clever or seemingly justified reasoning behind the use of these items and yet there is an outcry when it comes to piracy or counterfeits. Part is ok but whole is wrong? Altered images are wrong (al la RB models and Taesung) but an arm or leg or weapon is ok? And I'm not talking about one offs, or even 3 or 4 to flesh out a one off vignette or diorama but production work. Everyone wants something for their work. Sculptors want to be compensated for their work and make their money on time and product. They can increase their income if they can keep their work time to a minimum and produce more. But the trade off is that in order for them to make a fair wage, they have to bump the price, their justification for this is that the producing company gets to make unit costs down the line (even though they take the risk, marketing, production and packaging)
The idea of a license free product is a wonderful one. And I would like to see it work out. Maybe its a case of over thinking it and that is the only reason it hasn't happened before. Frankly though, I see it a more viable option to have a company create a good product and sell licensing of production and use. The incentive remains to produce a good product and everyone down the line is happy.
gordy
A Fixture
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
Although in larger markets like video games, an industry larger than Hollywood ( http://games.slashdot.org/story/04/12/19/2350234/Game-Industry-Bigger-Than-Hollywood) carry away with renaming real-life products without threat.
Yes, similar Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) did the same thing for 'the Slip' album, offered it free for download, remixing and required only to be recognized as originators.
Steve, an interesting concept, similar to what I mentioned about Nine Inch Nails previously -
When does a sculptors rights stop? When the piece is sold to a producer ?
It's all about the choice to open license, the proposal is no way systemic. Quality always percolates up. With hope a quality part would could be free for re-use.
Interesting point!
That can be murky waters of gray area, some are blatant while some are subtle
Although in larger markets like video games, an industry larger than Hollywood ( http://games.slashdot.org/story/04/12/19/2350234/Game-Industry-Bigger-Than-Hollywood) carry away with renaming real-life products without threat.
I'd like to see that as well.
Yes, similar Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) did the same thing for 'the Slip' album, offered it free for download, remixing and required only to be recognized as originators.
Steve, an interesting concept, similar to what I mentioned about Nine Inch Nails previously -
It is about CHOICE, the artist, the company have a choice which way to license or sculpt. This is a commercial related topic
Conversely, say I sculpt a head, hold all rights to the head, and license the use of the head to Company A to use it for 300 castings, while licensing the same head (I still hold the rights) to Company B for 400 castings?
When does a sculptors rights stop? When the piece is sold to a producer ?
That happens in video games often as well, A Steyr Aug will look just like a Steyr Aug but called a "Bullpup" in the game.
I realize it's a liberal proposal, the freedom for a sculptor and producer to have CHOICE in a license model.
Oh, I'm not telling you how to conduct your business, that is your professional affair!
The open license proposal would afford just those opportunities.
It's all about the choice to open license, the proposal is no way systemic. Quality always percolates up. With hope a quality part would could be free for re-use.
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,568
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
When does a sculptors rights stop? When the piece is sold to a producer ?
Yes, I say thats exactly when the sculptors rights end. A producer asks a sculptor for a figure or part and pays them an agreed amount. I assume the sculptor is aware that when they are sculpting for a figure manufacturer, its planned that many copies of the product will be sold,and used however the figure manufacturer sees fit. I would also assume that all rights to the finished product are part of the selling price and the sculptor retains none. Use Warriors as an example. They had several headsets in 1/16th scale, and also a number of 1/16th scale figures that used some of these same heads, either stock or slightly modified. Same thing in 1/9 scale. So often in fact that many of their figures started to look like extended family. I don't think they would have to go back to the sculptor and ask if they could use the heads as part of figures, or vise versa. Warriors owned them and could use them as they saw fit.
When does a sculptors rights stop? When the piece is sold to a producer ?
Yes, I say thats exactly when the sculptors rights end. A producer asks a sculptor for a figure or part and pays them an agreed amount. I assume the sculptor is aware that when they are sculpting for a figure manufacturer, its planned that many copies of the product will be sold,and used however the figure manufacturer sees fit. I would also assume that all rights to the finished product are part of the selling price and the sculptor retains none. Use Warriors as an example. They had several headsets in 1/16th scale, and also a number of 1/16th scale figures that used some of these same heads, either stock or slightly modified. Same thing in 1/9 scale. So often in fact that many of their figures started to look like extended family. I don't think they would have to go back to the sculptor and ask if they could use the heads as part of figures, or vise versa. Warriors owned them and could use them as they saw fit.
gordy
A Fixture
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
That is the norm, yet..
A sculptor can retain rights to a master and license use of X number of copies to a producer(s).
That is the norm, yet..
A sculptor can retain rights to a master and license use of X number of copies to a producer(s).
garyjd
PlanetFigure Supporter
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?
I totally agree with Mike on this one. ~Gary
I totally agree with Mike on this one. ~Gary
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,568
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
A sculptor can retain rights to a master and license use of X number of copies to a producer(s)
I guess a sculptor could, but would producers be willing to a pay a sculptor to do work for them, knowing that the sculptor could then turn around and sell the same item to a competitor? I know if I had a figure company and asked someone to sculpt something specifically for me, I wouldn't want them to retain any rights to it. Now, if a sculptor has produced a figure for their own use, then a company comes to them and asks if they can cast it and sell it commercially, then I think the sculptor would be more able to retain some kind of rights to it. I guess its the difference between a commissioned work, and non-commissioned piece thats someone believes has a market.
A sculptor can retain rights to a master and license use of X number of copies to a producer(s)
I guess a sculptor could, but would producers be willing to a pay a sculptor to do work for them, knowing that the sculptor could then turn around and sell the same item to a competitor? I know if I had a figure company and asked someone to sculpt something specifically for me, I wouldn't want them to retain any rights to it. Now, if a sculptor has produced a figure for their own use, then a company comes to them and asks if they can cast it and sell it commercially, then I think the sculptor would be more able to retain some kind of rights to it. I guess its the difference between a commissioned work, and non-commissioned piece thats someone believes has a market.
gordy
A Fixture
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
It greatly depends on how much the sculptor licensed use of the master. Buying a master for %100 and the sculptor selling out the rights, or the sculptor selling it for a fraction and retaining the rights.
The fractional cost of the master is the incentive for the producer(s): discounted price for the master and licensed for X number of copies.
In a perfect world, a sculptor would get more mileage out of licensing works. Producers would be competitive for quality production. Lastly, if the producer goes out of business, those works may never be reproduced.
Back to the topic,
Steve, that business model of licensing parts for other manufacturers is common place, again take the video game industry:
Valve writes a video game, sells it's own game. At the same time licenses out the video game 'engine' to other game developers, Valve makes more money on licensing their tech than their own games sell..
It greatly depends on how much the sculptor licensed use of the master. Buying a master for %100 and the sculptor selling out the rights, or the sculptor selling it for a fraction and retaining the rights.
The fractional cost of the master is the incentive for the producer(s): discounted price for the master and licensed for X number of copies.
In a perfect world, a sculptor would get more mileage out of licensing works. Producers would be competitive for quality production. Lastly, if the producer goes out of business, those works may never be reproduced.
Back to the topic,
Steve, that business model of licensing parts for other manufacturers is common place, again take the video game industry:
Valve writes a video game, sells it's own game. At the same time licenses out the video game 'engine' to other game developers, Valve makes more money on licensing their tech than their own games sell..
1969
A Fixture
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
Quite correct Gordy it even takes place within the 1/1 scale weapons industry on a common basis, take for e.g the British S.L.R L1A1, a variation of the Belgium FN-Fal, Australia adopted this weapon and they made their own under licence rather than buy from the U.K.
Dont mention gaming mate, its the one thing that temps me away from the sculpting, takes a lot of will power to resist, can hear `Battlefield Bad Company 2` calling me now.....
Steve
Quite correct Gordy it even takes place within the 1/1 scale weapons industry on a common basis, take for e.g the British S.L.R L1A1, a variation of the Belgium FN-Fal, Australia adopted this weapon and they made their own under licence rather than buy from the U.K.
Dont mention gaming mate, its the one thing that temps me away from the sculpting, takes a lot of will power to resist
, can hear `Battlefield Bad Company 2` calling me now.....Steve
gordy
A Fixture
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
Oh, I know.. moving to a Mac and a P.O.S. computer keeps me off 'em!Dont mention gaming mate, its the one thing that temps me away from the sculpting, takes a lot of will power to resist
Fernando Ruiz
A Fixture
Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?
Wow!
The topic has grown a lot while I was away Sorry if I copy paste some of the comments instead of quoting them:
"To me, and no offense meant, thats hypocrisy. Either you are against piracy and copyright infringement on the basis of financial damage to the original owner of the work, or on the basis of principle and law, or you aren't."
No offense taken. Let me explain how I take that kind of decisions when moral and ethics are implied. To me, hypocrisy is to do something while you tell the others no to do same. I always try to put in the place of the others when I give an opinion about their actions.
If I ever release a miniature, I know I'll be upset if someone use a part of it to make a profit and maybe directly damage my sales. On the other hand, if someone gets inspired by my concept and do something very similar, exactly the same theme, in the same pose and scale, and really resembling features, but using all original parts, it will be OK to me... Ideas are free.
"But I don't like it when those same people will say its not OK to borrow from other figure kits, when the law and principle are the same. Perhaps not as enforceable, but enforceable doesn't make a rule or law wrong or right."
The thing here is that you consider that is the same using an actual part of a product for doing another product, than using a product as inspiration to do another product. There's an important difference here.
Using an actual Tamiya rifle in your kit without paying is like using an actual sequence of Star Wars in your film without paying, but not the same as creating your own and unique Star Wars inspired stuff. Not talking about what is legal or not, but about the comparative action itself.
If I ever film a blockbusting movie, I would not sue anyone who did a product inspired in my movie if they don't break copyrights of things like name, symbols, music and similar stuff. I would consider it a homage and think about the impact I'm getting in popular culture. But if someone includes an actual sequence of my movie without my permission, it will probably get sued.
The fact is that there's a lot of things that use a resemblance but are legal because they change enough things to avoid getting sued. In my opinion, every creation is conditioned by all the previous artistic work. If you use ideas and concepts as inspiration for your ORIGINAL work, is fine to me, even is the resemblance is notable. If you use ACTUAL parts of a previous work of a third person, is not fine to me, even if its not copyrighted stuff.
"I hope the smiley after this means you realize thats a joke, because if someone did come out with unlicensed figs just as good as Knight Models, but cheaper, Knight Models would be either down the tubes, or calling George Lucas and letting them know about the unlicensed stuff".
Knightmodels had the one of the best ideas I've ever seen in the hobby. As a huge SW fan and also a collector, I know that there's no such thing as good quality bootleg SW stuff. The SW fans (or the Marvel fans)are not interested in products that look "similar" to the actual SW stuff. They prefer to pay for licensed products that have a big STAR WARS logo in the box (I do prefer it). Lucas has copyrighted almost everything so, there's no point in discussing that thing. If you wanna know in which side I am, I tell you that I'm buying all Knightmodels SW stuff related to the old movies.
In any case, everything I say, is my personal opinion. You can agree or not with it. Of course, I respect yours, even if I don't fully agree with it. I just bring out the movies/TV copyright thing again to response you and it would be too long to discuss about that. Let's end it, because here, we are discussing about using parts of previous kits in commercial miniatures...
Regards
FeR
Wow!
The topic has grown a lot while I was away
Sorry if I copy paste some of the comments instead of quoting them:"To me, and no offense meant, thats hypocrisy. Either you are against piracy and copyright infringement on the basis of financial damage to the original owner of the work, or on the basis of principle and law, or you aren't."
No offense taken. Let me explain how I take that kind of decisions when moral and ethics are implied. To me, hypocrisy is to do something while you tell the others no to do same. I always try to put in the place of the others when I give an opinion about their actions.
If I ever release a miniature, I know I'll be upset if someone use a part of it to make a profit and maybe directly damage my sales. On the other hand, if someone gets inspired by my concept and do something very similar, exactly the same theme, in the same pose and scale, and really resembling features, but using all original parts, it will be OK to me... Ideas are free.
"But I don't like it when those same people will say its not OK to borrow from other figure kits, when the law and principle are the same. Perhaps not as enforceable, but enforceable doesn't make a rule or law wrong or right."
The thing here is that you consider that is the same using an actual part of a product for doing another product, than using a product as inspiration to do another product. There's an important difference here.
Using an actual Tamiya rifle in your kit without paying is like using an actual sequence of Star Wars in your film without paying, but not the same as creating your own and unique Star Wars inspired stuff. Not talking about what is legal or not, but about the comparative action itself.
If I ever film a blockbusting movie
, I would not sue anyone who did a product inspired in my movie if they don't break copyrights of things like name, symbols, music and similar stuff. I would consider it a homage and think about the impact I'm getting in popular culture. But if someone includes an actual sequence of my movie without my permission, it will probably get sued.The fact is that there's a lot of things that use a resemblance but are legal because they change enough things to avoid getting sued. In my opinion, every creation is conditioned by all the previous artistic work. If you use ideas and concepts as inspiration for your ORIGINAL work, is fine to me, even is the resemblance is notable. If you use ACTUAL parts of a previous work of a third person, is not fine to me, even if its not copyrighted stuff.
"I hope the smiley after this means you realize thats a joke, because if someone did come out with unlicensed figs just as good as Knight Models, but cheaper, Knight Models would be either down the tubes, or calling George Lucas and letting them know about the unlicensed stuff".
Knightmodels had the one of the best ideas I've ever seen in the hobby. As a huge SW fan and also a collector, I know that there's no such thing as good quality bootleg SW stuff. The SW fans (or the Marvel fans)are not interested in products that look "similar" to the actual SW stuff. They prefer to pay for licensed products that have a big STAR WARS logo in the box (I do prefer it). Lucas has copyrighted almost everything so, there's no point in discussing that thing. If you wanna know in which side I am, I tell you that I'm buying all Knightmodels SW stuff related to the old movies.
In any case, everything I say, is my personal opinion. You can agree or not with it. Of course, I respect yours, even if I don't fully agree with it. I just bring out the movies/TV copyright thing again to response you and it would be too long to discuss about that
. Let's end it, because here, we are discussing about using parts of previous kits in commercial miniatures...Regards
FeR
