recasting
- Thread starter C1RCA
- Start date
RECASTING
Copying or duplicating, any item, with or without modification, without consent from the license holder, original creator, original artist, trademark holder, or copyright holder IS recasting. Deliberately recasting another member’s creation without consent is not supported by this community.
If an accusation of recasting is made, the burden of proof falls solely on the accuser. It is not the responsibility of the accused to prove their innocence in any form. The Dented Helmet chooses to believe our members are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until they can provide proof of their innocence. It is not the job of the administration to determine if an individual has recast, only their job to administer punishment if an accuser provides definitive proof of recasting.
From the CoC
Copying or duplicating, any item, with or without modification, without consent from the license holder, original creator, original artist, trademark holder, or copyright holder IS recasting. Deliberately recasting another member’s creation without consent is not supported by this community.
If an accusation of recasting is made, the burden of proof falls solely on the accuser. It is not the responsibility of the accused to prove their innocence in any form. The Dented Helmet chooses to believe our members are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until they can provide proof of their innocence. It is not the job of the administration to determine if an individual has recast, only their job to administer punishment if an accuser provides definitive proof of recasting.
From the CoC
neildwalker
New Hunter
Still a little confusing - so do you mean if you make a say resin cast of something soeone else has built? :confused
I'm a little lost as it seems we are all (in a way) recasting props made by a prop builder from Lucasfilm in 1980 and 1983. On that point - has there been any history of fans breaking any copyright laws by building their own outfits as I know Lucasfilm are notoriously strict with copyright of images and ideas - esp for profit making purposes?? :facepalm
I'm a little lost as it seems we are all (in a way) recasting props made by a prop builder from Lucasfilm in 1980 and 1983. On that point - has there been any history of fans breaking any copyright laws by building their own outfits as I know Lucasfilm are notoriously strict with copyright of images and ideas - esp for profit making purposes?? :facepalm
Last edited by a moderator:
REDBOY3384
Active Hunter
I don't see this discussion ending well.
Boba Swede
Active Hunter
Aaaah...! but you see most (if any at all) Fett props/replicas available on this forum are not recasted from the original Fett props but made from fan-made scuplts and thus, i belive, can escape the wrath of LFL lawyers.
Last edited by a moderator:
stormtrooperguy
Sr Hunter
that.
really, just go to therpf.com or here and search for the term. read. regret having read it. regret having asked.
Gilmortar
Well-Known Hunter
Yes, Yes, Yes and No.
To Boba Swede's post, No, in legal rights and terminology, no. The simple designs of the star wars characters are copyrighted. Because they are drawn designs and then created works. They have a copyright which is to be used soley by LFL. So technically, what we are doing is copyright infringement. Unless you buy and wear a Rubies Supreme Vader/Fett outfit, most likely you are wearing illegally reproduced copyrighted material.
Though someone else here at the board spent countless hours and there incredible talents on sculpting such a fine piece, they still did it and made copies without the permission of LFL.
Neildwalker is right, while we haven't directly "recast" a piece from the movie, its still Lucas' intelligable works. He thought of it, he created it, he copyrighted. They are his ideas and his designs. He holds the sole right to use those in any manner he sees fit.
Thankfully with groups like ours and the 501st, LFL somewhat turns a blind eye toward us, in the sense that we sort of "keep the legacy alive".
But there have been many instances where some of our own costumers here have recieved cease and desist orders from LFL for producing these pieces.
No onto MY take on why I think recasting is so-called "bad".
It's not that its BAD, but that its a question of morality to me. To know that someone like FP went through alot of time and angst to create his gauntlets, or the MSH2.
Now someone who knows a little about molding methods and casting, thinks to themself, I can save myself all this work of sculpting and getting it perfect when I have a perfect example right here, so instead of investing all the time and more money in materials for sculpting, they purchase the item and spend a minimal amount to cast it, reproduce it, and in instances will undercut (charge less than the original maker) the original maker, just so he can make a buck.
Morally, its pretty twisted.
Now not saying thats what ALL recasters do, but the majority of them (whom we find on ebay) do that.
Now some cases, the original artists, its mainly at their discretion. If you are needing a 2nd piece for something, its usually cheaper just to buy another from them. Silicone is expensive if that is the medium you are choosing (which most likely will be your best bet).
But really, casting rights really are a discretionary decision from the original sculptor and if you are wanting to make a copy for yourself, the best bet is to contact them.
And I'll step down from my soap box and return to work...
This has been Gilmore of OK, signing off
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll start by stating I that firmly believe that re-casting is morally wrong. With that said, my question that I'd like to pose is this...
What are the guidelines that most use to define "re-casting"? Is it that you purchase a work from a known prop-builder and make a mold and re-cast it ( either for personal use or to make a quick profit )? I'm curious to see if others feel that if you purchase a prop, then use it as a visual reference to sculpt your own version, that this is also re-casting?
I'm asking out of morbid curiousity.
What are the guidelines that most use to define "re-casting"? Is it that you purchase a work from a known prop-builder and make a mold and re-cast it ( either for personal use or to make a quick profit )? I'm curious to see if others feel that if you purchase a prop, then use it as a visual reference to sculpt your own version, that this is also re-casting?
I'm asking out of morbid curiousity.
CombatBaby
Well-Known Hunter
Yes it's morally wrong. It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, but copying no matter what the instance in general frowned upon....unless you are using a copy machine such as those who are "makinngggggg copieessss" if you don't get that reference i apologize.
anyways.... like everyone has said so far..recasting is getting an original piece from someone and finding a way to mold and reproduce exact copies from some sort of casting material (ie recasting)
the only time it has ever been ok is when a maker makes an agreement with someone so that they can recast their work.
there have been other times too where an original piece changes hands and molding rights are transfered.
or when a maker does not have the ability to mold their own helmet or a piece they've made and someone creates the mold (which usually has some sort of 'you can make 5 helmets for yoursef' kind of clause attached to it)
it's a very touchy subject, and depending how responses continue this might just get locked
anyways.... like everyone has said so far..recasting is getting an original piece from someone and finding a way to mold and reproduce exact copies from some sort of casting material (ie recasting)
the only time it has ever been ok is when a maker makes an agreement with someone so that they can recast their work.
there have been other times too where an original piece changes hands and molding rights are transfered.
or when a maker does not have the ability to mold their own helmet or a piece they've made and someone creates the mold (which usually has some sort of 'you can make 5 helmets for yoursef' kind of clause attached to it)
it's a very touchy subject, and depending how responses continue this might just get locked
Gilmortar
Well-Known Hunter
To add to Combat's post:
Its also been deamed that when a Licensed Company (ie. Don Post, MR) discontinue their production of said item, that while still a grey area in the community, recasting has a little more constituting towards being acceptable. Thus making that product available again.
Its also been deamed that when a Licensed Company (ie. Don Post, MR) discontinue their production of said item, that while still a grey area in the community, recasting has a little more constituting towards being acceptable. Thus making that product available again.
If you want to look at it objectively, none of the people making Fett or other SW related items have the legal right to do this. They are in essence making money from someone ´s copyrighted designs. So if you aren´t Rubies and have a license to replicate, you are´t legally allowed to make and sell the items. So if the definition of recasting is copying someone´s original designs be it from reference material or directly molding it from an original piece, then more or less everyone making armor and the likes are recasters. But where do you draw the line then? Sure, you could choose to buy Rubies at a way too steep price for a bad looking costume and be in the clear. Or you could honor the SW galaxy and strive to show off a costume that´s as good looking as the originals
In my opinion, the recasters so often debated are people buying from, for example FP or BM, and then making copies and reselling the copies and thus making easy money from other hardworking fans products. And that, I don´t support. If you want to make and sell Fett or TK armor, you should do the work yourself.
I really don´t get too hung up in the debate, since there will always be recasters out there, and we can´t stop them anyway. We can only choose not to support them by getting the real quality products from the makers we know spend hour upon hour perfecting their sculpts and molds to provide us with the best of the best.
I myself, would never buy from any other than the ones I know do the work and provide quality armor. Or I scratchbuild myself.
This is a neverending debate on every single prop- and replica forum, and my bet is that it will never die.
On the other hand, if people weren´t copying Lucas´ work, we´d all have to run around in Rubies and look silly. I my opinion the people making molds from other peoples work and the selling it at a lower price are the "recasters" which are so often debated. And they should not be endorsed in any way.
In my opinion, the recasters so often debated are people buying from, for example FP or BM, and then making copies and reselling the copies and thus making easy money from other hardworking fans products. And that, I don´t support. If you want to make and sell Fett or TK armor, you should do the work yourself.
I really don´t get too hung up in the debate, since there will always be recasters out there, and we can´t stop them anyway. We can only choose not to support them by getting the real quality products from the makers we know spend hour upon hour perfecting their sculpts and molds to provide us with the best of the best.
I myself, would never buy from any other than the ones I know do the work and provide quality armor. Or I scratchbuild myself.
This is a neverending debate on every single prop- and replica forum, and my bet is that it will never die.
On the other hand, if people weren´t copying Lucas´ work, we´d all have to run around in Rubies and look silly. I my opinion the people making molds from other peoples work and the selling it at a lower price are the "recasters" which are so often debated. And they should not be endorsed in any way.
Boba Swede
Active Hunter
@ Gilmore of OK
I stand corrected...
I stand corrected...
