Adam Savage On Topic Of Recasting

Spats

Blooded
Or you could save your change to buy that sideshow piece instead of a recast later down the road.. its what I'm doing.
 

TRI LASER

Hunter
Spats said:
Or you could save your change to buy that sideshow piece instead of a recast later down the road.. its what I'm doing.
Not everyone has the luxury of affording such a lavish piece. But then are we to deny a fan of getting a screen accurate prop that they have always wanted just because they cant afford it? I don't think that these things should only just be for the rich or ppl who are able to save up for them. As i said before, sometimes the closest thing is better than nothing at all.
 

Guan Thwei

Elite Hunter
Spats said:
Or you could save your change to buy that sideshow piece instead of a recast later down the road.. its what I'm doing.
It is what I'm doing as well I mean I'm living in my car, but I'm not making this sacrifice just for Predator collectibles. I also have debt that has to be taken care of that is going to done hopefully by the middle of next year. Just saying I'm willing to do what it takes to get certain things done. I know with family involved which includes the Christmas season and stuff I don't expect them to pull of crazy acts like that.
 

Spats

Blooded
That aint a luxury.. You can't save up 10 bucks every paycheck? Even 5? I'm broke as all hell, I'm in college, but I'm not taking any shortcuts to get the pieces that I want. I'm saving up, so I can afford an original piece instead of funding a recaster.
 

BonzRus

Hunter
As a new member here I find this to be an interesting and informative topic. Thanks for all the back and forth on something that seems to really get people fired up so to speak.
 
I am a bit confused though, is this topic about the morality of selling/trading recasts or buying them? The community guideline seems very clear about selling/trading recasts where it states:
 
B. Selling/trading of recast items.
Deliberately recasting another member’s creation without consent is not supported by our communities.
Deliberately recasting an active licensee's product is not supported by our communities.
Selling freely distributed paper props is considered a digital form of recasting.
If anyone believes their item has been recast by a member, they are encouraged to provide proof to our staff, with the understanding that the burden of proof lies solely with the accuser and that members will be considered innocent unless clearly proven otherwise by the aggrieved party.
 
I realize that you can't really sell something without a buyer so arguably the guideline above could be extended to include the buying, selling and trading of recast items as well but that seems to be left to the moral integrity of the buyer and individual interpretation of the guidelines and is perhaps where some of the conflict on this topic comes from? I dunno. The guidelines seem to be somewhat open to varied interpretations so (dare I say) do the guidelines need any further clarification or would that be pointless? If left to individual interpretation then there is going to be emotions but they need to be kept under control as i do not see any guidelines to help members deal with other members who choose to buy known recasts or that it is expressly forbidden.
 
There also seems to be some questions about if there are ever any circumstances or contexts where recating is acceptable such as if it is to make a lighter piece for your own personal use. I like what George said, "Just don't recast". But again that is me.
 
To Lee's point, "Copying a likeness, and throwing something someone else made into silicone or plaster or whatever is completely different." and I totally agree.
 
One is morally "acceptable" the other is not. And yes, Fox has been gracious and not tried to capitalize on the efforts of the fan base who enjoy the hobby and just want to help support it by selling their handmade "copies of a likeness" that Fox created. Call them "replicas" if you will. I do not consider for instance the bio I am making to be a "movie accurate replica" and I would never promote it as such but rather my own rendition of the bio from the first movie and I cannot stop people from recasting it but I can make it easier perhaps to tell the recasts form the ones I eventually sell. That is my burden to bear though to the extent that I choose to take it.
 
Just some thoughts for what it's worth.
 
Steve
 
The rules are there to put a stop to the selling and trading of recasts.  Sadly altering the rules further won't change what an individual buyer will do with their money.  In the end it does come down to a moral issue.  It becomes the issue because of the individuals opinions on the matter.  As I've mentioned mistakes can be made but to continue to buy and therefor support recasters is simply what keeps them in business.


It's not about the big guy or the little guy.  It's not a poor thing or a rich thing.  If you're hungry and you steal your food it's still wrong.  It's just more acceptable to the person doing it because they can justify it.  Then there are those who'd rather starve than steal.  That's what will always make this a hot topic and a never ending debate.  It wont change anytime soon.


I do feel it's good for us to air out our feelings on the matter once in a while.  People will pick a side from what we say and thats perfectly fine.  In the end it's their decision anyway and they can choose to live with it however they like.
 

BonzRus

Hunter
A Hunter's Moon said:
The rules are there to put a stop to the selling and trading of recasts.  Sadly altering the rules further won't change what an individual buyer will do with their money.  In the end it does come down to a moral issue.  It becomes the issue because of the individuals opinions on the matter.  As I've mentioned mistakes can be made but to continue to buy and therefor support recasters is simply what keeps them in business.


It's not about the big guy or the little guy.  It's not a poor thing or a rich thing.  If you're hungry and you steal your food it's still wrong.  It's just more acceptable to the person doing it because they can justify it.  Then there are those who'd rather starve than steal.  That's what will always make this a hot topic and a never ending debate.  It wont change anytime soon.


I do feel it's good for us to air out our feelings on the matter once in a while.  People will pick a side from what we say and thats perfectly fine.  In the end it's their decision anyway and they can choose to live with it however they like.
Thank you. This is what I was basically trying to say and I agree totally.

Steve
 
its a very thorny debate, personally i have a few movie cast pieces in my collection, that is cast from screen used pieces, i also have had the moulds for a few pieces, including the small avp hugger tiles used as set dressing in AVP, these you see on ebay, mostly they have been recast  from my pieces, just one of those things.
I enjoyed the viideo, and his comment about props coming through the shop getting copied and crew members taking them home happens a lot, i get offered stuff from movie moulds now and again, its a very under the table sort of deal, sadly i can't afford a lot of it, but i have shared small stuff from time to time.
I've been recast myself, i mostly make horror busts and props, my IT bust has been copied, as well as a couple other things, sucks but when i find them i usually get the auctions shut down.
 

Usurper

Veteran Hunter
trilaser

I am not tryin to look the big man, ( the history of the lair and recasters backs me up anyway *SIGH* ) and I have been fairly civil so far. But you've been here a matter of months and like it or lump it that's how the lair rolls for the most part. And yeah to any member who knowingly buys other members recasts I hope you balls and dick DO fall off.
You want to buy a recast fine go ahead I never said you could be stopped.
However if you try to sell it on via the lair or anywhere and the staff are informed, your ass is gone.
Now would you rather have heard that AFTER you tried to sell it on here ?

Theeldest , It's not elitist to pay for a original sideshow item, they are called collectables and limited editons for a reason.

My stance has been the same since day one, and before,during and after I was a mod.

Like It or lump it I don't do not care. For me it boils down to morals.
This subject will go around and around as people will ALWAYS try to find angles so they can justify it.


It has been put bluntly by several members but sometimes people just can not be advised , and I'm frankly tired of typing on my phone.

So happy Christmas all.
 

lflank

Hunter
Usurper said:
Like It or lump it I don't do not care. For me it boils down to morals.
This subject will go around and around as people will ALWAYS try to find angles so they can justify it.
But for me, this is precisely why I agree with Savage that it is not a black and white issue--it IS a matter of morals, and its morality can only be considered on a case-by-case basis.

I get that copying someone else's work to sell for profit is morally bad.  I don't think many people here would argue with that. But the moral issue gets more cloudy if we consider other circumstances. Hence my example of the ceramic aquarium skull that I use as a neck ornament.  It's very heavy, and I've often thought of casting a resin copy that would be lighter and easier to wear. Technically, that is "re-casting"---I would be taking an object that was made by someone else, and casting a copy of it. But it fits none of the criteria that you have specified for banning: "to any member who knowingly buys other members recasts  . . .if you try to sell it on via the lair or anywhere and the staff are informed, your ass is gone." My "re-cast" would not be of another member's work, and it would not be sold here or anywhere else. The person who made the original skull isn't losing a dime through my re-cast, because I already bought the original, and I cannot buy a resin copy from him because none exists. I, on the other hand, am not making a profit or indeed a single penny from my re-cast--it is not being sold anywhere to anyone, and is only to be used by me as part of my costume.

Another example: suppose I have a scene in a fan film where a Jedi dies in a volcanic pit and we see a sequence where his lightsaber melts and is destroyed. I have a prop lightsaber that I spent a ton of money to buy, and I decide to re-cast it in wax or maybe resin so I can melt it in my movie scene without destroying an original prop. Technically, I am again "re-casting". But again, I am not making it for the money, no one loses a single nickel, and indeed no money at all changes hands anywhere. There is no "angle" here to "justify"--no one is making or losing a single nickel, and in the end there isn't even a new prop that still exists. 

So the question becomes--is recasting an item simply to make it better suited for private noncommercial use or even to destroy it completely, the moral equivalent of re-casting that same item and selling it for profit on eBay, deserving the same response of banning? If I recast my aquarium ornament to make it lighter, or recast my lightsaber to make a meltable copy, then tell everyone here I did that, do I deserve, morally, to be banned for "re-casting", under the blanket policy of "no re-casting, period", in the same manner as someone who re-casts someone's bio mask and then sells dozens of them for profit? I certainly cannot see how the two actions are morally equivalent, nor can I see how the two can be treated with the same blanket response. Others, on the other hand, may see them as indeed morally equivalent. And therein lies the argument. Morals are always a grey area. 

In this entire thread, everyone keeps bringing it back to the example of Joe Blow counterfeiting someone's props to sell them, and I think it's clear to everyone that THIS practice is morally wrong and worthy of a blanket ban.  But we must also realize that there are other circumstances to be considered, such as the examples I have given, where a re-casting is done NOT simply to make money off someone else's work. And those other cases are NOT the moral equivalent of counterfeiting or stealing, and cannot be blanketly treated in the same way. They must be considered on a case-by-case basis under their own circumstances. That was Savage's point, and I agree with it completely.
 

Usurper

Veteran Hunter
Sure that's what Mr savage was discussing but what were discussing is recasting members work and sideshow and other prop suppliers which are in and applicable to our rules.

You are adding grey areas of the topic to black and white rules here.

I'm actually goin to leave it at that now for good and again lol.
Sheesh lol.
 

lflank

Hunter
Usurper said:
Sure that's what Mr savage was discussing but what were discussing is recasting members work and sideshow and other prop suppliers which are in and applicable to our rules.

You are adding grey areas of the topic to black and white rules here.

I'm actually goin to leave it at that now for good and again lol.
Sheesh lol.
Well I was discussing the original topic of this thread, which was Savage's views on the morality of recasting.  I'm not the one who dragged the black and white Lair rules into a grey morals discussion.  

But since we are now discussing Lair rules, perhaps a little clarification might be in order----if I recast my aquarium ornament to make a lighter version for myself to wear, or if I recast a lightsaber prop to make a wax version I can melt for a fan film, and tell everyone about it here, does that constitute a bannable offense under the "no recasting" rules . . . ?

EDIT: Here's what I'm getting at--it appears as if the Lair rule, just as the morality of recasting itself, is not really as "black and white" as we might think. It seems that the REAL Lair rule (and the REAL morality we hold about recasting) boils down to "it's acceptable to copy someone else's intellectual property as long as you aren't making money at it and aren't taking any money away from the original maker". In all the discussion about recasts, it's always the "SELLING" part that gets in our craw, not the "recasting" part. Which is, I point out, precisely and exactly the same attitude that the movie industry takes towards the Lair, the RPF, and the prop/costume community as a whole. After all, the entire prop/costuming community is based around copying someone else's intellectual property. So I think it quite fitting that we the costuming and prop community adopt the same attitude towards our work as the movie industry does towards us---we'll leave you alone as long as you're not unfairly making money off of our work.
 
The aquarium thing i would class as a found object, i've cast plenty of real world items for use in various projects, the lightsabre to would be only used for the film then yes, as long as then you didn't sell on any copies and destroyed the mould, thats just my opinion anyway
 

lflank

Hunter
monstermaker said:
The aquarium thing i would class as a found object, i've cast plenty of real world items for use in various projects, the lightsabre to would be only used for the film then yes, as long as then you didn't sell on any copies and destroyed the mould, thats just my opinion anyway
I would agree with your views. But now let's consider a few more examples to see where most of us would draw the moral line:

Suppose someone else wants a lightweight skull ornament, or a meltable wax copy of a lightsaber to use in THEIR fan film, and they send me a bottle of resin or a lump of wax so I can use it to cast them a copy to give to them, too.  Still morally acceptable?

Suppose they send me the necessary raw materials and give me some money to cover postage etc. Still acceptable?

Suppose they send me enough to cover all my expenses plus five bucks just for being nice enough to do it for them.  Still morally acceptable?

Suppose I *ask* them to send me enough to cover expenses? Still morally acceptable?

Suppose I ask them to send me enough to cover expenses plus five bucks for doing it? Still acceptable?

And then suppose I advertise my recasts for sale at a profit?  Still morally acceptable?

Note that in ALL of these examples, the physical act of recasting an object is exactly the same.  The only thing that changes are the motives and intentions of the people involved.

My own personal view is that the line comes when I begin deliberately trying to make money from them. I suspect that is most people's view too (and the real-world rule that the Lair actually follows). It's the "selling" part of recasting that annoys us, not the "making" part.

Which, I note again, is exactly the same attitude that the movie industry has towards the entire prop/costuming community.  They let us make as many copies and modifications of their intellectual property as we want, as long as we're not deliberately trying to make profits off their intellectual property.

I find that very fitting.
 
Top