Not Trying To Start Any Probs

[🪦 Bear ●]

All I can say is WOW...really, that\'s all...

[🪦 SuperDanDrista ●]

If I were to obtain a V for Vendetta screen used mask I would recast it to get some copies out there and make a buck...

BUT, if I got a liscensed replica I would NOT recast that.

One comes from a FX studio who could care less about it..the other is a prop intended on being a collectors item for fans

Make sense to anyone?

[🪦 Ben_Forsaken ●]

It\'s the RPF. It\'s full of self rightous jack asses.  You either have to ignore the "I can do this but you can\'t" crap that goes on there or leave. I left..

[post=\"151665\"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah I\'ve noticed that too. Every few months I\'ll drop back in for a few days to see if things have changed. Been doing that for years now.



So I guess as long as it\'s not an artists sculpture, then it\'s ok to recast? Then that means Kirks and hockey masks are fair game and we should never hear another word about "so and so recast a Hockey Mask" ??

I just think there\'s this huge gray area. That\'s the way I always thought though. I would never ever in a million years make a recast of say, The Doll Collector by Mark Goodson. But I think Kirks and hockey masks should be fair game. I know that HE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED got a good screen Hockey Mask and started offereing copies to everyone before he disappeared. But I\'ve seen a lot of pissed off people talking about how \'other\' Hockey Mask guys recasted a H.W.M.N.B.N. Hockey Mask. Now the way I see it. He didn\'t \'make\' the mask, he recast it. So if someone recasted his recast I think noone has any right to complain.

Idk. I appreciate all the comments though guys, keep em coming. This has been something myself and a few other people have been talking about for years. How come when \'so and so\' recasts a mask, it\'s fine, but when \'others\' recast the same mask, then it\'s not ok.

[🪦 stainboy ●]

IMO I don\'t see a problem or care when someone is recasting a rare hard to find mass produced mask.  DC Direct is no longer producing these masks so they\'re not loosing any money, the person who sculpted the screen used mask is not loosing any money he got payed to make the mask for the movie alone.

[post=\"151670\"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Grey area, is right. Technically, they are losing money. DC Direct (the toy company) , nor the sculptor for the prop is really the benefactor/loser, though. Neither directly have rights to the image. Who owns the image, character and likeness is actually the company DC comics. Even though DC Direct (A subsidiary of DC Comics) no longer produces the mask, DC paid all the fixed costs to bring Alan Moore\'s character to print as well as screen in the first place. They paid for licensing rights, overhead productions costs for the film, as well as overhead production costs for the mass produced mask.

To have someone else recast a mask and sell something based off of a licensed character is the origin of copyright law. If people could breach copyright law, no producer/manufacturer/filmmaker/comic book publisher would fund the outrageous amounts of money to create a comic book or movie character in the first place. The only reason DCcomics would spend 150 million dollars (or whatever amount) on a movie, is to solely have rights to compensation from any financial gain.

[🪦 Hauntmaster9 ●]

I Don\'t think we should get into copyright law here, this is a community based on unliscensed replica masks of film characters.

[🪦 Ben_Forsaken ●]

Very True HM9. I wasn\'t trying to open a can or worms. I just want to see what everyone else thinks about it.

[🪦 adam ●]

I don\'t think it matters anymore. If something is accessible like first generation anything\'s, they will be game for recasting to those who choose to do so. We don\'t owe anything to anyone really. If a Mutant gets recast, then it gets recast, nothing to do about it besides try to ruin their rep. The thing that is impossible to recast is the quality of the finish work. Unless someone is trying to offer something rare to people, and do a greater good, then most people are trying to make a quick dollar and the quality and care will be absent from it.
I just don\'t care anymore. The things I do now, I know where they are going and staying and thats that.

[🪦 stainboy ●]

I Don\'t think we should get into copyright law here, this is a community based on unliscensed replica masks of film characters.

[post=\"151689\"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You\'re completely right, Haunt. :biggrin: I\'ll get down from my soapbox...

I guess I just think copyright infringement is copyright infringement. No matter how you look at it. Whether it\'s simple a likeness, or a complete recast.

[🪦 mike ●]

it sucks either way i mean if someone recasted a screen used i wouldnt see anything wrong sicne its prob a good $$$ for it but alot of people are recasting the dc direct and promo mask and prob will the rubies the same as people recasted the supreme vader rubies and tried to say it was a sculpture..i sculpted somthing around oct nov but was accused of recasting casue a few things were the same and all the high and mighter people came down on me as well its jsut the nature of the beast...so many people doingthe same type of product makes it hard for the newer people to get good stuff and they get taken i say sculpture urs and sell it its ur own art work and alot harder to make than a recast of screen used or rubie or whatever else none the less if u mold something someone else made its a recast whether Hockey Mask or v mask jsut who and how u recast matters double standard but its there

[🪦 Ben_Forsaken ●]

ahh, double standard.

I think those are the 2 words I was waiting to see if they\'d pop up. You\'re right, there are alot of double standards on these boards. \'I\' can do it, but \'you\' can\'t.