jlcmsu said:
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.
Hmm ... this could be fun. In my best D-Dave voice "Let's dance Sideshow Boy."
No offense, but I had to do it
jlcmsu said:
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.
Okay ... are we assuming the buyer of the Patient X figure is going to be illiterate, stupid, or both? Because the auction clearly stated that it was a personal creation recast/recreated from the original source. How the heck could anyone with a 5th grade or higher education confuse that and think Sideshow had anything to do with it? I would love to quote the original auction, but apparently it's gone
jlcmsu said:
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.
You are an intelligent person Josh, I am confident of this. But, in the course of this reply, you neglected to explain the majority of your points. So, this person took the original head, recast it, repaint it - superior to SSC, I might add, then created / collected newer better fitting clothing. I could tell from the pics in the auction before it went down the difference. So, please explain to me how that's not a custom? He wasn't selling unpainted head casts by the truckload. He was selling one custom figure based on the original. You call it plagiarism if you like. The fact that he stated up front what he was doing ... I think I will call it an homage.
jlcmsu said:
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.
Fine. If you want to use that logic. What's to say the winner of the auction (if it had been allowed to finish it's run) hadn't A.) already bought an original from Sideshow or B.) wouldn't pick up the original at their first opportunity? I also am not sure why you took offense to the use of your 501st as an example. I stated up front I didn't think there was anything wrong with the act ... much like I don't think their is anything wrong with the recast job. I simply said I found it hypocritical to say, "Recasting is horrible, you should be ashamed .... oh, by the way, look at my wonderful
Josh 501st clone." Josh took a figure that you paid for ... much like the auction seller took a body, accessories, etc. that he bought - not to mention spent money to recast the head ... and repainted it ... much like this person did with the recast ... then sold it to you at a profit ... much like the auction seller was planning to. It's the same basic concept. He took someone's previous work, added his own "personal" touches and both made a profit and gets credit for the work ... you keep referring to it as Josh's 501st figure, correct? I have no problem with him doing this, but it's the same action. I explained this in detail before, so I am not going to waste any more bandwidth. Re-read my previous post if need be.
So, who's to say you wouldn't have bought 2 medicom 501st figures if not for that repaint? And, what's not to say that some new expensive bauble hasn't caught your fancy by the time Medicom gets around to making the 501st. Right now, you could rightfully rationalize ... "Well, I do already have Josh's repaint, I will just put that money towards collectible X." You might not have been willing to do that without Josh's repaint. Yes, I fully realize that Medicom will sell all the 501st figures whether you buy one or not. But, by your previously stated logic, you potentially cost them money.
jlcmsu said:
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.
Actually, you might want to re-read what I read before you get offended and start throwing insults my way. I was very specific about not blaming you or Josh for the repaint job. I have no problem with that. I was pointing out how I felt it was slightly hypocritical to bash the recast Patient X when you participated in something that is identical in both spirit and procedure. You may have not bought the repaint to sell for a profit. However, Josh did the exact same thing as the auction artist: He took someone else work, modified it, and turned around and sold it for a profit. True, you already owned the figure ... but the auction seller also already owned all the parts. You paid Josh for the work he did modifying the figure - thereby rewarding him for modifying the original and making a profit off it. I don't see how you are missing the similarity of the two acts
And, you might not want to throw the term plagiarism around too much. Because it doesn't apply to this matter in the least:
Plagiarism (from Latin plagiare "to kidnap") is the practice of claiming, or implying, original authorship or incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into ones own
without adequate acknowledgment.
I have written enough college papers to know that I can copy another writer word for word as long as I acknowledge the original work in my bibliography. That's all I need to avoid plagiarism. The seller was very specific about the item in his post. He told the potential buyer that he recast the item from a Sideshow sculpt. That is "adequate acknowledgment" in my opinion. So, to answer your question, no, I do not support plagiarism. However, this was not plagiarism. Hmm .... you might have a case for calling it a forgery ... except that he acknowledged that it wasn't an original in the ad ... actually, no you would be wrong on that count too.
The fact he is selling a cast of the head is wrong in and of itself. If he was just doing it for his own personal collection no biggie but when you start selling them that's where it crosses the line. As far as it being plagiarism there's not enough dramatic differences between the two. 
