Quote:
Originally Posted by Barbarian
Insults are still being bandied about here? I figured you guys wouldn't bite on this guy's bait of bullsh!t for this long. Don't you guys know that no one on this forum knows anything about anything, except for username001? If we don't agree with this shmo, then we are obviously a gaggle of morons.  |
I hope you don't mind if I post here after you, Barbarian, in a general response to this issue. I've read it through and there are some points I'd like to make and some issues that need clarification.
In a general sense, I agree that this thread should end. It seems that many of you are in basic agreement with User1, but you didn't respond well to his tone and word choice. Many of you disagree with him entirely, but legally (which is the crux of this issue) you’re mistaken.
kc is indeed breaking the law and is making a nice bit of income off the work of legitimate licensing companies like mine and others. In other words, User1 is correct, but was not very diplomatic in his approach. At least, that is what I’m gathering you feel. However, his aggressive approach aside, User1 is entirely correct in his points. Many of you may not like to read that, but there it is.
Regarding the issues: Many copyright laws are broken here and there and no one does anything. That is true. It's not worth the trouble to do anything about it, but only because our system makes it prohibitively expensive. But don't confuse inaction with consent. Copyrights are infringed in two basic ways: if money is made on the activity or if the item damages the brand of the copyright holder. When kc takes my piece, that everyone agrees he has legitimately bought, and makes it into Storm or some other, and sells it on E-Bay then he is breaking the law. Here is how someone damages the brand without selling the item: doing a sculpture of Mickey in a compromising position with Minnie and posting photos of that. You don't have to sell if for the license holder to make the argument that it is damaging their brand. The Lakers piece was not sold and was respectful of the Lakers organization and the NBA, but to have made her topless with the Lakers logo on the back of the shorts could be a problem. Again, because something isn't brought to court doesn't mean that it is not illegal.
Many things are illegal that are not acted on, including a lot of white-collar crime. That is changing. Copyrights have been infringed upon for decades. China has been knocking off computer chips and dvd’s for ten years or so. Finally, there is enough pressure that the Chinese are starting to do something about it. Are the pirates in their rights because they bought the first one? Of course not. kc is doing one piece at a time, but the legality of the situation remains the same. As more and more customizers sell more and more of this on E-Bay, it is my guess that action will have to be taken. Please remember that all things are in flux and just because no one did anything yesterday, doesn't mean that it could be done today or that action shouldn’t be taken. Just because some people support these customizers doesn’t mean it isn’t illegal and that buyers aren’t enablers. Again, let me stress that if any of these people did their own designs over a purchased statue, they could do that and they could sell it legally.
Further, someone who got their start doing garage kits doesn't mean they would do it today. While ignorance is no excuse under the law, it happens and no one has done anything. However, if it was no big deal, why wouldn't some legit company like CS Moore or Bowen or Sideshow just do the editions without going through all the trouble to license? Believe me, there are a lot of headaches associated with it and if the logic on this thread holds, then we could do that. But the sad truth is that we can't because it's illegal. We'd be damaging our reputations and we'd lose the lawsuit. Just the same as kc would lose the lawsuit. If kc took a She Dragon and made up a fantasy lady from it, he would be perfectly within his rights and could re-sell it. But you need to understand that by doing characters like Storm and WW, he is profiting from the hard work of companies like DC and Marvel that have spent years making these viable properties. If he did something called Hero-girl and made up the costume, would you all spend $800 on it? Probably not.
The internet has changed the playing field-make no mistake about it. The internet allows customizers to sell to a much larger buying base, but it also makes them more easily identifiable. As more of these customizers do more and more of these things, the amount of revenue generated will become high enough that the license holders will have to do something about it. Companies who hold the licenses to Storm et al are losing a customer, theoretically, who may have bought the item from them. They have a right to protection from this sort of thing and have an expectation of that protection. It doesn't matter if it's a recast or not. It is still breaking the law. Whether or not you like that information, it is the truth.
If someone does something like this occasionally, that is probably not going to get noticed. I wouldn't care about one or two. We all make mistakes or break the law here and there. It is hard to strictly observe every statute. Most of us are guilty of doing something we knew we shouldn't, and there are very few saints out there. But to break copyright law and make a good amount of revenue outright and obviously and then to post a letter like that on a section like this is going to get some negative reaction.
FYI: my understanding of artists doing drawings of copyrighted characters at shows is as follows: the comic companies sign off that this takes place and it is allowed because fans pay to come to the shows and meet their favorite artists. Artists go to a lot of expense to attend shows. It works for everyone to allow artists to draw well-known characters at shows.
While we're on the topic: when well known sculptors do sculptures of licensed characters and sell them, it is a VERY bad idea and I strongly advise them not to do it.
I'm sorry if many of you disagree, but this is the way it is. Anyone who thinks that kc or anyone can do this and is not breaking the law is mistaken. Again, because many do it and it's even talked about in the sculptor's section, it is still illegal. Eventually, as illegal activity gets more and more out of hand, it is acted on. This is how it works and a blind eye (and even support) doesn't excuse it forever or make it right.
I’d prefer this thread wasn’t here, but these are important issues and those are my thoughts. I’ll discuss them with anyone at shows, but I won’t be debating this in this arena as I have work to do and the law is the law. Thanks for reading.
CSM
