Copyright, parts re-use and a proposal?

[Fernando Ruiz]

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

I don't think anyone blames you about the parts reuse situation. At least, not me . You do what you have to do to get a living in our hobby, that's all. The simple fact that you took the trouble to give an explanation means that you are managing the best that you can. The thing is that we are talking about any possible solution to this situation, so everybody gets rewarded for his job, the ones whose parts you reuse and even you when someone reuse your parts. As a professional, what do you suggest?

Regards
FeR

 

[Jamie Stokes]

A thought that occurs.....

Open licence is a good idea for us participating here. We are open, respectful, and we here on pF appreciate the efforts of others.

My thought is that the pirates/ recasters may misuse open licence/ copyleft to justify copying figures en masse.
"oh, just the rifle was open licence, not the whole figure? but gee, I thought it implied I could copy the whole figure" - that kind of thing.

Within our community of legitimate sculptors, painters, hobbyists and converters/ kit bashers, we probably have a sliding scale of knowledge of the work involved. All 4 categories will abide by the conventions of law, copyright and good manners.

The re-casters may (and probably one day will) misuse the open license to get a cease & desist order for recasting challenged.

Still, as a tool to keep artists work recognised, within the community of the law abiding, it is still worth discussion.

I like Steve's idea that he gets a license fee, and a company could use a casting of his for X many units.

Keeps Steve as a supplier going, allows a company to keep producing figures.


As always, the "citizens" of the community will abide by the rules. Or be smacked if they dont.
But the re-casters.....no matter what, there will always be bootleggers, and my thought is we remain alert to the possibility of misuse (or worse, misinterpretation by a legal system) of the open licence.

regards

 

[joegabo]

"It is about CHOICE, the artist, the company have a choice which way to license or sculpt. This is a commercial related topic

"


Does an artist or company not have the choice now? If they are approached that is. (what is the difference in re-casting an entire figure or just a gun, sword, hand or head?) Or are you talking about charging say $150 for a kit that you get rights to, instead of $40 for one you do not. But then what would be the limit of reproduction? Only 30% reproduction allowed per kit? I say if you can not do it yourself commission/buy it from someone whom can/has it. If its too expensive and you cant make a living that way well then, umm, get a real job... Artists are supposed to be starving haha, haha. (mind you the more sculptors there are the less you can expect to get paid, unless you really are that good...)

Sure it is about choice to you , but to me its about ethics and artistic integrity. (What is the difference of a re-caster to a re-sculptor as in both cases as it stands now both exist and neither pays for the rights)

I am just saying that if I put out work with parts that I did not do, I would be a hack. (but then again I do not agree with how many things within society function. hehe)


Mind you I am not talking about conversions or homie jobs but something intended for mass production, or commercial production of any kind.

Any company/individual already has the right to re-use their own works as they see fit. Or to sell the reproduction rights to anyone they choose. But I doubt any sculptor or company worth their weight in salt would like people freely using parts of "their works".

To be honest I just do not see how this could possibly work as it was presented. To me it just seams like a way to try to rip off parts cheaply. Plus it would suck if heads started to look the same on every miniature....

Just my two and a half cents worth on the subject. (but I think we or at least I will have to agree to disagree, hehe)

Take care,
Joe

 

[T50]

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

That's great! Please keep me updated.

I meant the other gun Brits had forever... Enfield rifle...

 

[housecarl]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?

That's great! Please keep me updated.

I meant the other gun Brits had forever... Enfield rifle...

Does that mean there are some Commonwealth figures in the pipeline Taesung?
Please,
Carl.

 

[Fernando Ruiz]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?

Does that mean there are some Commonwealth figures in the pipeline Taesung?
Please,
Carl.

That would be great news!
Surely I would paint them... But what I'm really waiting is for some British infantry figures that could be converted on Home Guards
FeR

 

[T50]

Sorry, guys. I almost hijack the thread...

 

[Fernando Ruiz]

Also my fault, sorry!
FeR

 

[carl reid]

This is a fantastic thread Gordy!

As a sculptor/manufacturer it's a nightmare!!!!!

Hornet have been suffering from this for years.

I also saw a company post a new product line a while ago, that showed half of a AFV damaged/burnt out, and made a scenic base out of it. It looks like they had bought a kit cut it into bits and added a scene. I can't imagine they paid for the patterns to be made it would have cost a fortune for little return.

I also hear of folks casting on there kitchen table bits and pieces, without permission. This also wrong!!!
The manufacturer has paid for that pattern, and own all rights to it.

It's a real mine field.

Carl

 

[ausf]

I think it's a nice idea, but almost impossible to implement. It would have to be 'across the board' changes to copyright law or it would just lead to assumptions and excuses for plagiarism.

Artists have been 'stealing' from each other since caves in France. 'Copying' is another thing altogether and is never okay.

We generally seem to be talking about the same issue, hard to sculpt items like helmets and weapons. I could sculpt 50 heads in the time frame it would take me to sculpt one helmet and it still wouldn't be right. A helmet could be made in minutes via CAD, but I can't afford that.

So I take a helmet from a 30 year old Tamiya Pz II kit and use it as a starting point. Painstakingly measure a real helmet, reshape the styrene part, sculpt a rolled edge, machine and place rivets, hollow it out and sculpt an interior. What I now have stands little resemblance to the original. Does Tamiya have the right to take that helmet and stick on a sprue? Not that they would want to, or that there would be anything I could do to stop it.

Or maybe I take a DML helmet and sculpt a canvas cover or add a wire camo net. Again, it's no longer the original piece, no more than Warhol and a soup can. But if I take one of Roger's or Taesung's heads, cut the helmet off and stick it on a new head, it's stealing, no matter how you look at it (even if they said it's okay).


As far as characters go, if Giger dreams up a horrific Alien, no one has the right to profit from that idea and artwork without his permission, no matter what you name it.

Unless of course you're making 'Zippy, the Zany Alien', which is an obvious spoof and a completely different form of art.

 

[Diegoff]

I think that the key is the benefit that one gets fom the work of other one.

1- If I buy a bag of Hornet´s heads and use one of them for my figure, I have paid for that. So it's OK.

2- If I buy a bag of Hornet´s heads and modify one of them and put it on a master and make a production in order to sell as much as I can, obviously part of my benefits are owed to the talent of Mr. Saunders, the sculptor of the original head.
This applies to any part of a figure -heads, weapons...- and to all manufacturer, from the small firm making resin figures to the bigger ones making plastic kits.
This is valid for the ideas , designing and historical research too, though that is a more dificult question.

For me the key matter is How much time are you saving using such part for a commercial purpose?

You know, Time is gold ;-)

 

[bonehead]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

I don't think anyone blames you about the parts reuse situation. At least, not me . You do what you have to do to get a living in our hobby, that's all. The simple fact that you took the trouble to give an explanation means that you are managing the best that you can. The thing is that we are talking about any possible solution to this situation, so everybody gets rewarded for his job, the ones whose parts you reuse and even you when someone reuse your parts. As a professional, what do you suggest?

Regards
FeR

Thanks Fernando.

I have no suggestion. The big problem here is that this business is so marginal, for both producers and pattern makers like myself, that this whole discussion, frankly, is moot. Nobody gets rich off of it. We only do what we do because we love what we do.

Those who rip-off manufacturers or people like myself are either talentless, unethical, or both. As long as there is a model business, there will be people who rip stuff off. Nobody will be paid for this unethical practice, and nobody will make enough money off of it to make pursuing such things worthwhile.

It is just the way things are. I accepted this many years ago and I am still here doing what I love to do. Unethical and talentless people will still rationalize to themselves why it is okay to rip off stuff from others. And so it goes.

The only reason I have not gone off to do something else is because this is what i love to do. I could do much better in any number of careers. But I would only be doing it for money. In the end, that would not make me any more happy.

C'est la vie!

Mike

 

[T50]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

C'est la vie!

Good one, Mike!

 

[Jamie Stokes]

Shades of grey thoughts again.....

We have to be specific as what is classed as what....

the topic of copyright of figure accessories, weapons, etc. (here within referred to as "parts" in this discussion) by Gordy.

Opening a box up, it will be full of Parts.
Parts for the figure, parts for weapons & kit.

So we probably need to refine what is meant by parts - same idea as parts for a car.

Engine parts are different from interior trim parts.(for example)

Like wise, parts for weapons are different from parts for heads, face & torsos.

So keep parts as a generic term (12 parts in the box)

Anatomy parts sculpted by Gordy Enterprises (7 parts)
Weapon parts sculpted by Steve Ready Miniatures, under licence.(5 parts)

Perhaps as an interim step, this could be used to define what parts are what, plus provide a way of assigning identity to parts.

It may be a process that needs defining, as reading the thread, it seems to be an unwritten rule.

Regards

 

[gordy]

Shades of grey thoughts again.....

We have to be specific as what is classed as what....

the topic of copyright of figure accessories, weapons, etc. (here within referred to as "parts" in this discussion) by Gordy.

Opening a box up, it will be full of Parts.
Parts for the figure, parts for weapons & kit.

So we probably need to refine what is meant by parts - same idea as parts for a car.

Engine parts are different from interior trim parts.(for example)

Like wise, parts for weapons are different from parts for heads, face & torsos.

So keep parts as a generic term (12 parts in the box)

Anatomy parts sculpted by Gordy Enterprises (7 parts)
Weapon parts sculpted by Steve Ready Miniatures, under licence.(5 parts)

Perhaps as an interim step, this could be used to define what parts are what, plus provide a way of assigning identity to parts.

It may be a process that needs defining, as reading the thread, it seems to be an unwritten rule.

Regards

I used the term "parts" because:

A) I didn't want to type "weapons, swords, helmets, canteens, etc" over and over again

B) Listing them all out in a large body text gets confusing

but mostly becuase of reason "A"

 

[Jamie Stokes]

No worries Gordy; Keeping it Simple.

I just meant that for Copyleft, labeling/ naming of parts should be clarified; for discussion purposes, Hear-hear for point A.

Many of the reviews already give a breakdown on anatomy/ body parts, plus weapons as count to make up the full parts count.

cheers

 

[carl reid]

No one has problem with folks using parts for a conversion or personal use!!

It does however become a real problem if it for commercial gain. as soon as rubber is poured over that part whether it's a head with minor alterations or a weapon etc you had stepped over the line into the grey area of copyright infringement!

How is it ethically right for a sculptor/manufacturer to spend time and money on the development of a product, for someone to come along and basically steal it for their own gain?

You see every component part of a kit is sculpted or engineered to produce a piece. So to copyright or licence each part is just far too complex and expensive to carry out!

To swap licences and pay what are effectively royalties on parts to a third party would be too complicated to put into place. Also this would eat into a profit margin that is already small and tight!

In my opinion it is totally inpractical!!!!

All we can hope for is there is more ethical folks out there than none ethical.

Carl

 

[Diegoff]

No one has problem with folks using parts for a conversion or personal use!!

It does however become a real problem if it for commercial gain. as soon as rubber is poured over that part whether it's a head with minor alterations or a weapon etc you had stepped over the line into the grey area of copyright infringement!

Carl

Agree with Carl.

Diego

 

[1969]

To swap licences and pay what are effectively royalties on parts to a third party would be too complicated to put into place. Also this would eat into a profit margin that is already small and tight!

In my opinion it is totally inpractical!!!!

I have to disagree in some way Carl, I respect what you are saying but I believe licensing can work and work in a simple and effective manner.

If I make a weapon and sell it I am not naive enough to think that it is never going to be copied by someone purchasing it, for someone making a spare one for personal use is not such major deal but for someone making multiple copies to use for their own commercial figures damages sales.

I know that to sit done and make an accurate and scale weapon from scratch can take me as much time as sculpting a full figure, there has been plenty of times I had wished I had that weapon in stock to save the time and I am sure there are many sculptors who have been tempted to use a kit part from someone else to save time or because they dont posses the skill to produce their own weapon.
To offer licence means that a sculptor can use that part free from any come back that he made a great figure but used pirate parts for weapons and damage his reputation. With a licence system its out in the open with no come backs and the sculptor is able to produce two kits instead of one because of time saved making weapons.

I also find that on many occasions you require the weapon to actually pose the initial mannequin so work on the figure cannot begin until you have the weapon, to have one ready at hand makes the sculpting far easier.


All the best

Steve

 

[JasonB]

No one has problem with folks using parts for a conversion or personal use!!


Carl

Actually I have read a number of posts in the past with people stating they ARE against copying parts for personal use. I'm not one of those, but there are some.Never say never.