Bootleg Patient Zero on eBay!

[pixletwin]

There is such a demand for zombies, that all the seller needed to do was come up with a unique head and he would have sold tons.

yup.
i would personally have liked to see an eye put out of the sculpt. If he would only do that I won't go to hell.

 

[BadMoon]

There is such a demand for zombies, that all the seller needed to do was come up with a unique head and he would have sold tons.

He didn't want to sell tons though. That is the problem. He just wanted to sell one figure. That is why I personally don't take issue with it.

 

[lcummins]

He didn't want to seel tons though. That is the problem. He just wanted to sell one figure. That is why I personally don't take issue with it.

And just how do we know he only wanted to sell one? There is a picture in this thread where he was selling one at a show...

 

[Cosmo_Kramer]

From the look of the amount of reactions , I would say patient zero is far from dead

yea but i cant wait to get my ''PATIENT X'':chew

 

[lcummins]

...Explain to me how slightly modifying someone original sculpt is any different than simply recasting a head? I think this applies to paint jobs as well...

Because when you re-sculpt or repaint, you are just adding your own personal touches to the released figure, and are only working with that one original copy. If you recast, you can make dozens, if not hundreds of "new" figures to sell... pretty simple math to me.

 

[Shai]

You may have won this battle Lonnie but we will win this war !!!!

 

[pixletwin]

In war, no one is a winner.

 

[DouglasMcc]

Because when you re-sculpt or repaint, you are just adding your own personal touches to the released figure, and are only working with that one original copy. If you recast, you can make dozens, if not hundreds of "new" figures to sell... pretty simple math to me.

Okay, I accept the fact that recasting can lead to more items being produced - therefore a more severe case. However, that was not my question. How is that one auction - i.e. that single auction figure - any different from someone who takes a company's sculpt - slightly modifies it by shaving details here and there - then repaints it and sells it for a profit? That person did modify the head in that the paint job is obviously higher quality than SSC version. And how is it any different from the SS Freaks' artists here who don't even modify the sculpt? I believe a repaint charge here is in the 30 to 50 range depending on the level of painting. So, that's cash that the artist could never have made if not for Sideshow, Hot Toys, Medicoms, etc. original product. To me, and just, maybe it's a naive position, that exactly the same as that single auction for a recast and repainted head sculpt. In both cases, you are using someone else work (or in other terms, someone else artistic endeavor) to bring both glory and monetary gain to yourself. I have no problem with either of these options. However, it does seem hypocritical for someone to say "recasting" is wrong, but be okay with repainting/ resculpting. I welcome any logical explanation of how the act is different - either legally, morally, or kurgan-ly (okay, this is SS Freaks ... the TOS says that term has to appear in every thread so I decided to give King a break this time ).

P.S. Another case that occurs to me - once again, not faulting the person who does this, just curious how its different: We have a member here who sculpted and sold in bulk Daniel Craig Bond sculpts. Now, I am assuming neither Craig, Flemings estate, nor Sony Pictures received any of the profit/ licensing fees that should have originated from this internet commence. Yet, I saw no outrage here. In fact, many of the people who spoke out against the auction here complimented the member and wanted to buy the item. How is that not hypocritical?

 

[pixletwin]

Okay, I accept the fact that recasting can lead to more items being produced - therefore a more severe case. However, that was not my question. How is that one auction - i.e. that single auction figure - any different from someone who takes a company's sculpt - slightly modifies it by shaving details here and there - then repaints it and sells it for a profit?

I raised that question on the first page or so when somebody compared this to the IM. Don't recall an answer. The difference was glaring. This guy was selling 20+ IMs on eBay (plus dozens of other questionable pieces). But whatever. I just got my repainted Sith Anakin back from Josh and he is wonderful. Thanks Andy for the great sculpt and thanks Josh for the awesome paint up.

and with that, I am officially bowing out of this thread.

 

[nash]

Because when you re-sculpt or repaint, you are just adding your own personal touches to the released figure, and are only working with that one original copy. If you recast, you can make dozens, if not hundreds of "new" figures to sell... pretty simple math to me.

sounds like a cop out to me. It's pretty black and white, both situations the term "recasting" is used. No matter what you do to the sculpt, it is still "recast" off of an original SSC sculpt.

So if the PatientX seller added one tiny minute scar into the Patient Zero recast head, that would then deem it "adding his own personal touch" right? Or what about the custom paint job, isnt that adding his own personal touch?

 

[devlinboy]

i dont see the big deal here . i was pissed this auction ended.i was planning on sniping it lol

 

[The Josh]

Well, as far as I'm concerned this is plagiarism in sculpting form. He's taking someone elses work and selling it in his own basically. It's not his work nor his license to sell these things and that's wrong. It's really no different than what was going on with the Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Aragorn sculpts. Someone taking someone else's work and making some money off of it.

As far as repainting something or having someone paint something. That's totally different than a resculpt or recast in this case or past cases. Take my 501st figure Josh painted up for me. I bought the figure and paid him to paint it for me he didn't change the sculpt. Basically all I did was pay him to paint it cause I can't even do paint by numbers. It's still Medicoms figure just with a little paint on it.

 

[nash]

that was my point josh. Personally i have no problems with what people do, that's their perogative.

but if youre going to have an opinion that "recasting" is wrong. at least be consistent on that opinion. Whether or not you add one extra whisp of hair to an anakin sculpt or whatever, fact of the matter is, it's still a "recast" of the original.

and just to make things clear, i mean no offense to any of our artists here. im just trying to make a point about some people's logic of recasting.

 

[The Josh]

that was my point josh. Personally i have no problems with what people do, that's their perogative.

See that's what I get for not reading the whole page.

but if youre going to have an opinion that "recasting" is wrong. at least be consistent on that opinion. Whether or not you add one extra whisp of hair to an anakin sculpt or whatever, fact of the matter is, it's still a "recast" of the original.

I agree.

 

[EVILFACE]

Because when you re-sculpt or repaint, you are just adding your own personal touches to the released figure, and are only working with that one original copy. If you recast, you can make dozens, if not hundreds of "new" figures to sell... pretty simple math to me.

But Fake Zero is different. The cloths are tailored better, the sculpt looks a bit different, it's painted a bit different.

So by what you just said, this customizer added his personal touches to his custom. It is not a 100% recreation.

 

[DouglasMcc]

Well, as far as I'm concerned this is plagiarism in sculpting form. He's taking someone elses work and selling it in his own basically. It's not his work nor his license to sell these things and that's wrong. It's really no different than what was going on with the Obi-Wan, Anakin, and Aragorn sculpts. Someone taking someone else's work and making some money off of it.

As far as repainting something or having someone paint something. That's totally different than a resculpt or recast in this case or past cases. Take my 501st figure Josh painted up for me. I bought the figure and paid him to paint it for me he didn't change the sculpt. Basically all I did was pay him to paint it cause I can't even do paint by numbers. It's still Medicoms figure just with a little paint on it.

I respect your opinion and your right to have it Josh. However, to me, it is completely illogical. There are 2 reasons to be angry about this item:

1.) Someone is upset that the selling of the item could devalue their original.

I doubt this is your reason, but I will state up front, I have no respect for people who buy toys as "investments" so I have no desire to debate this scenario. But that's another discussion entirely.

2.) You feel that the recast of the item in some way harms either the original company or artist. It, in some way, robs them of profit.

Well, I do not see how either act robs Sideshow or the artist of money. There are no more of the 300 originals left to buy from Sideshow. The sculptor has already been paid for services rendered. Unless Sideshow decides to make more, which would ruin them in the collector's eyes, there is no more profit in this item for them to make.

But in terms of the essence of all 3 acts - recasting, resculpting, and repainting - you are in fact committing the same offense. All 3 acts involve an artist taking an original work, modifying that work in some way, and then passing it off as their own work for profit. In order to re sculpt a piece, you need the original work. Otherwise, you would create your own sculpt. Is the artist giving some kind of commission to the original artist / company for using their work as the basis for a private commercial venture? Could the repainter create their masterpiece without the original item? No. I will use your 501st clone as an example. In all honesty, your commissioned work hurts Medicom in the end. Can you honesty tell me that you don't think Medi will get around to making a 501st clone? While there is no guarantee, past experience tells us they will reuse that armor til the cows come home. So, Josh's repaint has, in effect, cost Medicom 150 to 200 bucks in potential future income. You can't say the same of the recast Zero. All 3 acts are based on the same concept, so it's illogical and slightly hypocritical to condemn one and encourage and/or participate in the other 2. I will respect and fight for your right to have an opinion, but it needs to be consistent or it invalidates itself.

Now, my point is not to bash those who pay for repaints. As previously stated, I have no problem with this. I also have no problem with people recasting the items as long as A.) the item is no longer available from the original manufacturer and B.) the seller is completely upfront and truthful (i.e. not trying to pass it off as an original).

This reminds of collecting classic Kenner Star Wars figures. The accessories were very brittle and easily lost. So, people have begun taking the original accessories, recasting them and selling them (for a profit of course) as reproductions. Is Kenner or Hasbro making money off this? No. However, they do not offer this service, so it doesn't hurt them. And, I think a collector would rather have a reproduction than nothing at all.

But Fake Zero is different. The cloths are tailored better, the sculpt looks a bit different, it's painted a bit different.

So by what you just said, this customizer added his personal touches to his custom. It is not a 100% recreation.

God help us ... I agree with Evilface ... the Apocalypse is upon us

 

[The Josh]

I respect your opinion and your right to have it Josh. However, to me, it is completely illogical.

Well, I don't think you understood my point and IMO yours make very little sense overall. Though you have the right 2 be that way.

I doubt this is your reason, but I will state up front, I have no respect for people who buy toys as "investments" so I have no desire to debate this scenario. But that's another discussion entirely.

I don't buy my toys for investment so you're right this was in no way my what I was getting at.

You feel that the recast of the item in some way harms either the original company or artist. It, in some way, robs them of profit.

Well, it does potentially harm the artist and the company. Why? Because If someone sees it or it gets advertised a certain way they could say something against the artist/company if the the buyer doesn't know.

Well, I do not see how either act robs Sideshow or the artist of money. There are no more of the 300 originals left to buy from Sideshow. The sculptor has already been paid for services rendered. Unless Sideshow decides to make more, which would ruin them in the collector's eyes, there is no more profit in this item for them to make.

As I said the buyer could think it's a SS product or a sculpt by lets say Andy B. If they think so both could potentially get bad names because of it. Especially if multiple sculpts are made.

But in terms of the essence of all 3 acts - recasting, resculpting, and repainting - you are in fact committing the same offense. All 3 acts involve an artist taking an original work, modifying that work in some way, and then passing it off as their own work for profit. In order to re sculpt a piece, you need the original work. Otherwise, you would create your own sculpt. Is the artist giving some kind of commission to the original artist / company for using their work as the basis for a private commercial venture? Could the repainter create their masterpiece without the original item? No.

Well, from what I can tell the person took the original and recast the original and is selling for his own profit. So in that way he's taking away from the people who did the original. If he wanted to recast the figure and do different things for his own personal interest then that's another thing all together. Otherwise he doesn't need to be taking someone else's item and making more then selling them. That's wrong and is plagiarism.

I will use your 501st clone as an example. In all honesty, your commissioned work hurts Medicom in the end.

Please don't tell me your serious. You defend this crap above then try to tell me I hurt Medicom.

Can you honesty tell me that you don't think Medi will get around to making a 501st clone?

I'm sure they will. I plan on buying them too when they do.

So, Josh's repaint has, in effect, cost Medicom 150 to 200 bucks in potential future income. You can't say the same of the recast Zero.

It hasn't cost medicom anything. Why? Cause when they do a 501st I plan on buying one. So not only do they get the money from the one I bought through SS they'll get more when I buy theirs too. Also lots of people on this board have seen my original Medicom figure with paint to look like a 501st and done the same. That's added more money to Medicom's pocket. Where as this bootleg figure could be taken as a SS figure and give them or the sculptor a bad name.

All 3 acts are based on the same concept, so it's illogical and slightly hypocritical to condemn one and encourage and/or participate in the other 2. I will respect and fight for your right to have an opinion, but it needs to be consistent or it invalidates itself.

You might wanna make sure you get your facts straight though before you go tossing this stuff out. I bought a figure and paid someone to paint it. I didn't cost Medicom anything nor tried to make profit off of my figure. This person took a SS figure and is trying to make profit off of their recast. Two totally different things.

Now, my point is not to bash those who pay for repaints. As previously stated, I have no problem with this. I also have no problem with people recasting the items as long as A.) the item is no longer available from the original manufacturer and B.) the seller is completely upfront and truthful (i.e. not trying to pass it off as an original).

So you're ok with plagiarism? As long as I change a few things in my paper that is no longer being written by the original author or pass it off as the original. It's the same dang thing man.

 

[BadMoon]

Well, I don't think you understood my point and IMO yours make very little sense overall. Though you have the right 2 be that way.



I don't buy my toys for investment so you're right this was in no way my what I was getting at.



Well, it does potentially harm the artist and the company. Why? Because If someone sees it or it gets advertised a certain way they could say something against the artist/company if the the buyer doesn't know.



As I said the buyer could think it's a SS product or a sculpt by lets say Andy B. If they think so both could potentially get bad names because of it. Especially if multiple sculpts are made.



Well, from what I can tell the person took the original and recast the original and is selling for his own profit. So in that way he's taking away from the people who did the original. If he wanted to recast the figure and do different things for his own personal interest then that's another thing all together. Otherwise he doesn't need to be taking someone else's item and making more then selling them. That's wrong and is plagiarism.




Please don't tell me your serious. You defend this crap above then try to tell me I hurt Medicom.



I'm sure they will. I plan on buying them too when they do.



It hasn't cost medicom anything. Why? Cause when they do a 501st I plan on buying one. So not only do they get the money from the one I bought through SS they'll get more when I buy theirs too. Also lots of people on this board have seen my original Medicom figure with paint to look like a 501st and done the same. That's added more money to Medicom's pocket. Where as this bootleg figure could be taken as a SS figure and give them or the sculptor a bad name.




You might wanna make sure you get your facts straight though before you go tossing this stuff out. I bought a figure and paid someone to paint it. I didn't cost Medicom anything nor tried to make profit off of my figure. This person took a SS figure and is trying to make profit off of their recast. Two totally different things.



So you're ok with plagiarism? As long as I change a few things in my paper that is no longer being written by the original author or pass it off as the original. It's the same dang thing man.

I love how you break stuff down. You really put a ton of effort behind your arguments. For that I offer this.

 

[The Josh]

I love how you break stuff down. You really put a ton of effort behind your arguments. For that I offer this.

I do honestly. Even if someone goes this guy doesn't know what the muck he's talking about I want them to see that I tried. I try not to shoot from the hip.

 

[occulum]

I respect your opinion and your right to have it Josh. However, to me, it is completely illogical. There are 2 reasons to be angry about this item:

1.) Someone is upset that the selling of the item could devalue their original.
2.) You feel that the recast of the item in some way harms either the original company or artist. It, in some way, robs them of profit.

gotta agree with those 2 points being the main 2 factors.

have to say the first is what would bother me more.
I know you said you dont agree with toys being investments, but that is a very real factor. Sideshow would have a temporary open edition on every product if ES & 2nd market value wasnt a factor and didnt help drive their product sales to a certain extent.

... though I do agree with you on some points, the guy should just make his own zombie. But Id guess that he cant, or he would. Those that cant have to pay somebody that can. if he bought his PZ at retail hepaid $45 for his zombie headsculpt. I'll bet Sideshow paid more than that for their.
and no way do I believe for one sec he was only going to sell 1. .... 1 would be no big deal IMO





I know what it is ...... ya know most peeps at Sideshow are Mac Freaks too