Box o' Vinyl Recasts

[george]

Actually, Gillfan, you and I agree on the statement that recasts and unlicensed kits both profit from someone else's creation and work. I wasn't suggesting that they are not at all the same; I was discussing the differences between the two and discussing the harm done by recasts as opposed to the harm (or the lack thereof) that studios perceive is done by unlicensed kits.

But isn't it interesting that the recasts we are talking about here are all recasts of licensed kits?  Recasters didn't distinguish between licensed and unlicensed. They were only interested in saving themselves the expense of commissioning the sculpture by using the one I paid for.  So, if the recasters don't make the distinction between licensed and unlicensed, why should we?  The real issue here is recasting.  And the question UMA has been struggling with is "what should UMA reasonably be expected to do when an allegation of recasting comes to UMA?"

Reasonable people might disagree about the damage done by unlicensed kits.  I submit to you, considering the responses of GEOmetric's former licensors, that except in the rarest of circumstances, studios aren't impacted by the few sales made by a producer of an unlicensed kit. You are doing well if you sell 50 copies of a resin kit.  If the studios were concerned about the sale of unlicensed kits, they would have been a lot more eager to slam recasters of GEO kits; they would have shut down Diamond Comic's distribution of those kits; Screamin' and Horizon might have produced vinyl kits beyond the 1990s; and the two dozen small garage kit producers I helped during the last couple of years, when Universal came calling, would have been fleeced of their gross sales and shut down.  The fact is, the studios know about garage kits and would be motivated to put a hurt on producers of those kits if they thought it impacted the studios ability to profit from their intellectual property. They know these sales don't impact them.  GEOmetric worked with a couple of dozen different licensors.  Except in the rarest of circumstances, they really weren't concerned about being damaged by GK sales.

But, there is simply no question about the damage that is done by recasting.  Again, look at three of the leading U.S. figure kit companies in the 90s, Horizon, Screamin' and GEOmetric.  Gone! with recasts playing a significant role.  Again, these were three companies producing licensed kits and recasters didn't distinguish between licensed and unlicensed.  And, sculptors and producers of unlicensed kits who create an original sculpture are also discouraged, by recasting, from contributing to the hobby when copies of their original sculptures and kits are copied and sold without their consent.

The ethics of licensing is a subject for another conversation that I am happy to have with folks.  But, I want to address the issue of recasts here because that is what the original post was about and that has been a difficult and concerning and emotional subject for GK artists and producers and the moderators of this forum.

GeoS

[drlamont]

I think most collectors would hesitate to buy a recast of a kit currently in production, but would be more willing to buy one of an older kit they might not otherwise be able to afford or find at all. Maybe someone should set up shop as an official recaster, paying royalties to the original kit makers for the right to recast and sell the kits. Since the original producers are no longer making anything off of these kits, and since they would have no expenses in the new venture, any money made would be 100% profit for them.

[Gillfan]

George- Your response is very eloquent. I see your point, and I must agree with you.

DrLamont- A great idea on the surface but 1) If a company is out of business, whom do you pay? 2) The whole licensing issue again.

[george]

Thanks, Gillfan.  Appreciate that. 

drlamont: Of course, companies whose kits are being recast are free to do that.  That basically happens now when one company sells another company a prototype or master casting for that very purpose.  But then we aren't talking about unauthorized recasts.   

The controversy folks have been dealing with here on UMA involves recasting without the permission of the original producer.  That kind of recasting devalues the kit which is more valuable because of the limited production run.  A number of collectors like to buy two of a kit, one for painting and the other for investment.   The recasts also show shrinkage, loss of detail, and usually have problems with fitting of parts although these may not be as apparent until you see the original kit.

But, you know, it's cool when you reel in a kit that was produced as a limited edition kit and you know you got something rare and valuable that a limited number of folks will be able to get.  Isn't that one of the cool things about collecting?  Isn't that one of the cool things about seeing a friend's collection, seeing that he/she has some cool stuff that is very hard or impossible to find?  Unauthorized recasting diminishes that.

GeoS

[Dr. Madd]

You see, that's one of the odd things about UMA, before I signed on here, this whole issue was not an issue with me. I never thought about it.

[scorpio]

well said george i could not agree more..

[Hepcat]

And the question UMA has been struggling with is "what should UMA reasonably be expected to do when an allegation of recasting comes to UMA?"

The controversy folks have been dealing with here on UMA involves recasting without the permission of the original producer.

Actually UMA has decided not to struggle with the controversy. The stated policy is to let others do so elsewhere.

[hammerfan]

recasting is stealing, doing unlicensed kits is stealing there is no distinction. You are a judge george. you know better.

[Haunted hearse]

Considering that Disney has gone after small operations (like daycare centers) for using unlicensed images, I can't believe 20th Century Fox or Paramount would do nothing about people in this country making unauthorized kits using thier charaters.  thsi was stupid on their part.  As far as re-issues are concerned, I loved that Polar Lights reissued the Addams Family house, and it was fun to build.  I'm all in favor of official remakes of older kits, especially when it comes to building them.

[Hepcat]

As far as re-issues are concerned, I loved that Polar Lights reissued the Addams Family house, and it was fun to build.  I'm all in favor of official remakes of older kits, especially when it comes to building them.

I like official reissues because they enable me to build something. I hate the idea of building an original collector's item kit from before 1980 or so, and I just won't do it.

[Dr Acula]

recasting is stealing, doing unlicensed kits is stealing there is no distinction. You are a judge george. you know better.

You hit the nail on the head there!

[george]

Sorry but you are mistaken about that, Hepcat.  After Terry and I talked, one of the reasons UMA reopened this thread was to see if reasonable people might be able to come to some understanding of the recasting issue. He and I talked about a respectful conversation about that issue because that was the issue presented by the first post in this thread.

The hope is that members who don't really understand the controversy and folks who have been directly victimized, as well as those otherwise concerned about recasts, might better understand each other and to help UMA resolve some of the anger and confusion which has been frustrating for so many.  Terry Ingram thought it was worth dealing with the controversy.  Whether it devolves to more struggling and frustrating is up to you folks who wish to comment here.  I'm hoping to keep the conversation on this point that has caused UMA problems.

Frankly, I think a civil dialogue on this is important considering the impact recasting has had and continues to have on the hobby.  Clearly folks need to be aware of what recasting does and it's obvious from many of the comments in this thread that a number of folks are completely unaware and have never even thought about it.

Remember how this thread started. Kits for which I own the copyrights, kits that I still have in inventory, were recasted.  A person completely unaware of what a recast is, gave recasts to a member here.  That member did not know the significant damage recasting does generally and has done to me personally.  That member wanted to post photos of the recasts and he and I had a very productive and respectful exchange.  And now we are all having a discussion about the issue.  Had a discussion like this one (informational, reasonable, respectful) occurred months or even years ago, we might have avoided some of the frustration experienced by some UMA mods and some of the members here.

Hammerfan: As far as there being no distinction between recasts and unlicensed kits, I think I have explained that there are some differences between the two.  I think my experiences negotiating with more than 20 different copyright holders and studios since 1990, having sat and discussed these issues and distinctions with studio legal departments and licensing departments, having testified in a multi-million dollar lawsuit concerning allegations of copyright infringement, I am confident that I have a pretty good idea of what studios are concerned about and what they feel is harmful to their copyrights.  If you re-read my comments in this thread, I don't think you can find anything that you can factually disagree with.  In fact, the studio responses that I have recounted in this thread clearly show that, except in rare circumstances, the studios are neither harmed by, nor interested in, a producer in a small niche market like GK that produces so few kits.  Clearly, though, producing an unlicensed kit can result in a copyright holder holding you to account for the revenues they feel you have unfairly gotten by use of their copyrighted material. I'm not arguing with you on that point. 

I am discussing the issue that was originally raised by the first post of this thread that discussed sharing photos of recasts.  So, it sounds to me that we are all in agreement that recasts have no place in the hobby and on UMA.

But it sounds like folks want to discuss whether UMA should ban unlicensed products.  I wasn't aware that UMA members were upset about unlicensed products or that members here had been hurt by unlicensed products.  But, to those of you who have been victimized and hurt by unlicensed products, I would urge you to contact UMA moderators to let  them know that you want all unlicensed products to be banned. My hope is that this thread continue to be about recasting.  I'm happy to chime in if someone starts a thread about unlicensed products and the harm they have caused.  But, I am more concerned about the impact recasting has had on the hobby because GEOmetric was far more impacted by recasts of our kits than we were by unlicensed kits. 

GeoS

[hammerfan]

Nice redirect your Honor. My point is, it is very difficult to take a moral stance on recasting when you are taking money out of the pocket of companies that own the rights to the IP 's that are being produced without license. I dont weep for Universal or Fox or any of the big boys, but that isnt the point.  You cant take the moral high ground about one issue and over look the other. and least not if you want to be taken seriously.  Garage kits used to be fun. I wish it was the same way now. People talked aobut kits, they traded kits and gave each other pointers. But then some new people came into the hobby who somehow got the idea that they shoudl be runnign the show and that thier morals should be imposed on everybody. These people created a fracture  in this hobby which has never ben healed.there are some none too bright acolytes of this group who feel that everything they say is gospel. I say take everything that is said with a large grain of salt. Why do peopel hide behind closed BBS and websites??  its gotten out of hand. And all because some people couldnt play nice.......

[george]

Larry, I'm not trying to re-direct.  Just trying to keep the thread on the issue that was started by the first post.  And, I agree with you that we don't need folks trying to force their opinions or morals on other folks.  I'm not telling folks how to conduct themselves in this hobby or even on this forum.  I just think it is good for folks to know the facts.  They can make up their own minds about what it right and wrong for them.

Since the first post was about GEO recasts, I wanted to respond to THAT.  Terry and I both hoped some good would come out of folks hearing the facts about how GEOmetric and others were impacted by recasting.  I haven't posted anything that I haven't experienced or seen first hand.  I haven't call folks names, haven't belittled anyone's opinion, and I'm not telling anyone to do one thing or another. 

But it was clear from the first couple of posts in this thread, and some of the later posts, that folks are not aware of the damage done by recasts.  I say, let folks make their own decisions about this stuff but let's have it be an informed decision.  And, like I said, if someone wants to start a thread about the evils of unlicensed products (I assume that would include figure kits, busts, masks, T-shirts, recasts, too, and other stuff), I'd be glad to chime in.

GeoS

P.S. Garage kits are still fun, man.

[Hepcat]

Sorry but you are mistaken about that, Hepcat.  After Terry and I talked, one of the reasons UMA reopened this thread was to see if reasonable people might be able to come to some understanding of the recasting issue. He and I talked about a respectful conversation about that issue because that was the issue presented by the first post in this thread.

Hopefully the end result doesn't involve angry demands that posters be banned for activities outside of their posting on UMA, or other aggrieved posters quitting because their demands have not been met. That has evidently been the history of the issue being aired.