# How do you ID recasters ??



## Nighteagle2001 (Jan 11, 2001)

I bought a couple of resin kits on E-Bay. The seller runs a site called "mini model madness". It was only after I made the purchase did I find out he was a recaster. My question here is how can you tell who's a recaster and who's "Legit" before a purchase is made ??????? BTW the seller's Ebay ID is 25zz.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

> How do you ID Recasters??


 I'd recommend a tattoo across the forehead, and an "R" branded into the left cheek with a hot iron.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

That's not something that is easy to comment on. There is no way of knowing whether or not the guy recasted it, bought the kit that way or even knows what "recasting" is. Unless he made statements to the opposite effect.

It's good to try and keep your fellow modelers informed. But be carefull.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Just visited the site. He has some original kits he has made himself, including a nice looking K-7 space station(even if I might differ with him as to the scale).

What makes/leads you to believe what you bought was recast? Did he state it was an original kit? Was it simply because it was resin?


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

The only way to know is to just stay informed. Keep on top of what comes out that you're interested in and who's making it, then look for other people selling the same thing. If it's the same exact kit - pose, size, and all - then do a little investigating to see where it originated from.

Make a directory on your machine to save pics and info to. That way when you spot something that you're not sure if you saw before, you can go back and check your list.


----------



## JamesDFarrow (Sep 18, 1999)

They have "shifty eyes".

James


----------



## Nighteagle2001 (Jan 11, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> What makes/leads you to believe what you bought was recast? Did he state it was an original kit? Was it simply because it was resin?


I showed the site to a friend of mine. A day or two later we were talking and he
showed the site to someone and was informed that he was a recaster.

The packaging shows it as an original <Larson designs copyright 2000>

For the record what I bought was a DY-100 and two Tholian ships. both inscale with PL's TOS-E


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I'm pretty sure Larson is the name of the guy who made the kit and runs the site.
I know he posted picks of the K-7 here while it was still being developed and sent a bunch of people emails when it was released.

Most of his stuff is resin. Just because the stuff isn't styrene doesn't mean it's not original.

I've heard a couple of people complain that he hadn't paid a friend of theirs for a kit they had done some sculpture work on for him. But again all of this is BBS heresay.

I haven't heard anything about recasting per se about the guy, but then I'm not a PI and don't have the resources to checkout everything the guy has ever done.


----------



## chiangkaishecky (Oct 4, 2000)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I've heard a couple of people complain that he hadn't paid a friend of theirs for a kit they had done some sculpture work on for him. But again all of this is BBS heresay.


Yeah, OK.
But if you read those threads very carefully and remember what was alleged you would've noticed that the alleged perpetrator never did explicitly deny any of said allegations.
Only weak and unconvincing deflection was offered specifically an attempt to inspire sympathy along the lines of, paraphrasing, "I am in the Spanish inquisition now".



Chuck_P.R. said:


> I haven't heard anything about recasting per se about the guy, ..


Well here's a thread where he tried to pass off a workbee w/cargo train as his own
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=91222
It's worth noting that after this incident "Chris Lee" made up a new account as "John May".


Chuck_P.R. said:


> ...but then I'm not a PI and don't have the resources to checkout everything the guy has ever done.


That's why recasting is a great sideline.
The original manufacturer can't really contact the authorities 'cause they themselves are violating someone else's copyright.
Larson has always been given the benefit of the doubt and make no mistakes he benefits alright.... like a bandit.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

You've raised some interesting points.
Though I'd like to point out that "MasterCaster" seems to have come and gone quite anonimously.

I personally don't like making or reading charges about people I don't have personal knowledge about. 

Whether or not people were paid for work done in cottage industries is a hard thing to prove. It's usually he said/she said. And it's tremendously hard to prove that you haven't done something - i.e. to prove a negative.

I don't know about the worker bee issue, it looks damning on it's face.

Though when you consider that the person making the charges is un-named, plus even if true: there is no way to know that the subject wasn't sold to the guy by a third party claiming to have made it and able to sell it to him "cleanly"(at least by GKit manufacturers' terms).

Anyhow, if the guy did fail to pay someone for doing a sculpt, if he did redo a kit of which only 5 was supposed to be produced(knowlingly). I wouldn't want to buy from him.

However, I don't know that for sure. Because the guy might have changed his log-in after being flamed, doesn't convince me either.

I once accidentally spread a virus I didn't even know I had via an Email Egroup.
Even though I didn't even know I had had the virus I was so vehemently flamed that I had to change my email etc because of hundreds of undeserved flames.

So I guess my point is I usually require a little higher standard before condemning someone then just anonimous accusations on BBS'es.

If any of these two guys want to give us more info, I'd welcome that.

None of this means you are not right, Chaingkaishecky.
The evidence you've brought up might mean exactly what it suggests.

I've just become very cynical of late when it comes to condemnation.
At least here in the United States, lately it seems that people have a "lock'em up now and figure out the truth later" mentality.

Sometimes it seems like I've awoken in a Twilight Zone version of the country I grew up in.

If it's clouding my judgement on this issue, I apologize.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

chiangkaishecky said:


> That's why recasting is a great sideline.
> The original manufacturer can't really contact the authorities 'cause they themselves are violating someone else's copyright.


You are 100% right about this. As technically everyone involved is violating the law. But if no one made Garage Kits or accuratizing stuff the hobby would be a lot more boring.

Whenever possible everyone should always try to get a product from the original source if that source can be verified.

Even doing that, and assuming you can verify that info, it's all still technically illegal.

But how you spend you money ultimately has to be up to you. Just try to know what you are getting into and make as an informed decision as you can.


----------



## Wbnemo1 (Aug 22, 1999)

Ok real quick here,
Mastercaster is a professional model maker and doesnt really have time to frequent these boards, I was the one that showed him what Chris was trying to pawn off as his own, I was pretty irrate at this try. 
Minnimodelmaddness recasts period. Yes he does have a few new originals, but most are recasts
As far as knowning who recasters are..the original pattern makers know. they can recognize their pieces...Ok here goes :

Sorry Chris, but dude, where are your morals !
Larson Designs :
reacasts as follows and origin If I know it

Boobo owl from clash of the titans- recast from a metal version he bought from monsters in motion

Buck Rogers starfighter 6" - lol resin recast of diecast corgi

C57-D - 3"recast off Comet Minimetal
Cylon Basetar- 2" recast off of Comet Minimetal
Cylon Raider - 1.3" recast off Comet Minimetal
Flying Saucer- 2.3" Day the Earth Stood Still- recast off Comet minimetal?
Flying Sub- 3" recast -unknown origin, perhaps Tracy or Tim knows
Gort - 3" recast of Comet Minimetal
Gunstar from The Last Starfighter- 3.5" recast from Comet Minimetal
Invaders UFO- 1.5"- recast from Comet Minimetal
Jupiter 2 Launch cradle - this one ticks me off. that photo is of the master pattern that I made for the 2 ft Jupiter 2. It isn't anywhere near the dia or size the caption reads. That, and he told me it got destroyed, looks fine to me, Thanks for the honesty Chris.
Jupter 1- recast off the Lunar models kit
Blake 7 Liberator- recast from Comet Minimetals
Man From Planet X Spaceship- one I made for him as a pattern maker 
recast of my pattern
Martin War Machine- recast?
MoonBus- recast of Comet Minimetal
Nautilus deformy- recast of a piece that some well known sci fi collectors asked not to be copied- this is an unreleased Amaquest Deformy. I have one as well.
Nautilus fish tank Ornament- recast off my pewter Nautilus- Thanks again Chris 
Orion Space Clipper- recast from Comet Minimetal
Proteus- recast off MY little Comet Minimetal which Chris stole from me
Seaquest DSV- recast off my piece someone let me borrow from his magic rocks seaquest set
6" Seaview recast of the master that both myself and Tim patterned
spindrift- recast from Comet Minimetal
Stone hendge- sculpture that T & J Studios did for us. He never paid the sculpter for this I found out - nice going there, Chris, take some of your Ebays winnings and pay him.
Viper- Comet Minimetal recast
Visitor Ship - recast off Tims piece
Warhawk- sure hope this isnt a reworked J.Brown's piece-recasted...don't know
Whitestar- resin recast from the toy that came with the figure pack
Well this gives you an idea of the fact he does recast
Funny, this coming from a gentleman that told me he was done with making resin models and getting out of the business.


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

I was looking at ebay last night and noticed that there is a work bee train being offered seems to be the same as in the post referred to above and the location is central florida.HMMMMMM


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Whoa there, dude. If it's the same WorkBee train I've noticed before ->  this one? <- then it's from the Alliance Models kit and sold by Federation Models. Far as I know it's not a recast and I urge you to research a subject before making an insinuation. You can do a lot of damage to a reputation by stating something as "fact" that is far from it. I've seen it happen too many times in the hobby and it continues to be the case from several semi-reputable folks even now. 

Not meaning to jump on you, just wanting to point that out!


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

Sorry no insinuations meant....just thought it was kind of weird reading the post and then seeing one on ebay just after that and noticing it was from Florida.No Insinuations meant at all.If it is infact by alliance then I do apologise for even posting in this thread


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I have purchased a couple of resin models from Minimodelmaddness, but I would not know a recast if I see one. My resin purchases have been few. I never heard of recasters, till I came to HobbyTalk. I know that this has been discussed hear many times. So do we suspect all that sell resin kits?


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

Chris Lee, aka Larson Designs, aka John May, aka 25cz, aka 25zz, aka "nothing more to say here, bid high, bid often" has been around for quite a while. He burned a bunch of folks, William and T.M. Lindsay included, AND he's posted to Hobbytalk quite often (usually it's in the lull in between whenever people remember his antics) and the stories have been corroborated time and again. If you recall, when Steve Iverson moved the CultTVMan board off of Hobbytalk, Chris made all these overtures about taking over the spot and running the Sci Fi board. It was at the same time he started showing a master he said he was working on of the Star Trek: TMP Travel Pod.

If it's a question about a recast, you can simply query it here, or at Starship Modeler, or at The Clubhouse. Always it's "buyer beware", but these online communities are great resources to help avoid being ripped off. The online model community is actually pretty small and it doesn't take long for the bad apples to stick out like a sore thumb, and those of us who've been part of this community, collectors, producers, and builders have pretty long memories.


----------



## TMLindsey (Nov 23, 1999)

Wbnemo1 said:


> Flying Saucer- 2.3" Day the Earth Stood Still- recast off Comet minimetal?


Yep, Will, that's correct. Loves those Comet mini metals!



> Flying Sub- 3" recast -unknown origin, perhaps Tracy or Tim knows


As far as I recall it is either a Comet or Lunar kit. I know he recasted it, though, because I saw the original and it was already in kit form with a white metal hatch wheel and instruction sheet.



> Martin War Machine- recast?


I think this one was from a set of three mini War Machines with a diorama base.



> Visitor Ship - recast off Tims piece


Actually, this one is not from mine. Mine is accurate  I don't know where his came from but I doubt he sculpted it since he isn't capable of sculpting. Probably another commissioned piece he never paid for.

Tim L.


----------



## Orne (Feb 23, 1999)

Best way for the original sculptor to ID recasts to everyone is to post detailed pictures on their websites like the following:


http://groups.msn.com/InfinityReach/rebellioncreationsrecastalertpage.msnw

I've identified two recasters of my Batura and Armored Imperial kits. One was operating out of Henderson, Nevada at one point through PO boxes; he's not only notorious on the West Coast for his recasts, he's a known ex-felon with armed robbery on his record. For obvious reasons he doesn't give out addresses or phone numbers to the public. The same MO is followed by another recaster in Beatrice, Nebraska.

The only way to stop recasters is to not buy their kits. No profit, no existence.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I have purchased a couple of resin models from Minimodelmaddness, but I would not know a recast if I see one. My resin purchases have been few. I never heard of recasters, till I came to HobbyTalk. I know that this has been discussed hear many times. So do we suspect all that sell resin kits?


well of course not. resin is one of the only affordable ways for small time kit manufacturers to produce original pieces. as was said earlier in this thread, the only thing to do is stay informed about what is available, and from whom.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

OK, here's the can of worms- What does Barris think of the "Batura"?


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

F91 said:


> OK, here's the can of worms- What does Barris think of the "Batura"?


I bet hes pissed!!!


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

Yeah. But he's pissed at everyone.


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

Ignatz said:


> Yeah. But he's pissed at everyone.


Exactly!!! But thats what you get when everyone wants one.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That's what happens when you get greedy.

Which reminds me, I still need to finish that Batmobile.... :devil:


----------



## jtwaclawski (Aug 7, 1999)

How do you ID recasters? 

Ask others. See if anyone know if the part or kit originated someplace else. If it did and you can contact the original creator, see if they gave permission to the person providing it to the public.

My experience is that MOST recasters stick to Ebay. As pointed out zz25 has been known to recast. Also Impulse Models (Recast Starcrafts) and Junglegym3 (recast Ask Models and possibly recasting Sci-Fi Spaceship Models).

Those are the only ones I know of currently and they opperate on Ebay.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

chiangkaishecky said:


> Yeah, OK.
> That's why recasting is a great sideline.
> The original manufacturer can't really contact the authorities 'cause they themselves are violating someone else's copyright.


I find it funny that people are hot to defend their items when they are breaking someone's copyright.

The argument that I can sell you a better more accurate (pick your starship part), or I can print up any correct decals for any type starship. Is admitting that the maker is himself willing to break the law! Yes, the hobby would be less fun if we all had to sit and whittle an a-b deck, but the fact is even that is aginst the law.

While Rebel Creations went to the trouble to ask Barris and Jeffers(sp?) for the ok to release the kits did they also get the ok from WB? Changing the name doesn't make it ok to copy.
My understanding is their are 6 different entities which need to sign off for a Batmobile to be done as a kit. Barris is only 1. You still need the mfg of the wheels, rims, chutes, artwork... 
And just because the kit might be used to modify a kit already on the market doesn't allow the maker to use the license from the origional kit.

Anyone making Trek parts(lighting kits included) got the ok from Paramount? Rc2(the license holder for trek kits)? Anyone?? Didn't think so.

Larson recast Commet which has in the past recast other kit makers, MiM recast Chris Trice, all who are profiting off of copyrights held by Granada entertainment. Face it we break the law by buying these items also.
While I won't buy a recast or make a copy of anyones work without permision, we all are breaking the law here! The question is to what degree.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

If you want to get really "funny", let's talk about those of us who buy from people who produce non-licensed products like kits and decals, shall we? Aren't we just as guilty of perpetuating a "crime" as those who produce the kits and decals w/o proper licensing? 

Personally, I know there are very few people in the world who are totally perfect where morals are concerned. Mine are pretty darned gray, so I don't judge too much where the copyright is concerned, since any money earned by most GKMers is literally a drop in the pond compared to what monsters like ParaBorg or LFL make annually on licensed products. The people who originated those designs were paid by their employer, so aren't exactly being hurt. The $30 that PNT Models charges for this kit or part or Millenia Models charges for that part or kit and JT Graphics charges for those decals isn't exactly hurting a company that has a retail take in the hundreds of millions and likely isn't producing a kit/decal sheet of that particular item anyhow. 

Like I said, a gray area. 

However, when it comes to recasters, there's someone that we likely know of who's not making those dollars the recaster is raking in, thus losing money. Considering that most GKMers are far from getting rich in this business, that means Recasting Is Bad, m'kay? At least, to me it is, anyhow.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I personally don't believe that it is a criminal act to produce aftermarket parts and accessories for licensed products. Since you have to purchase the licensed material in the first place in order to take advantage of any aftermarket offerings, it wouldn't make sense for a license holder to shutdown or sue someone who is ultimately benefitting them by producing value-added accessories for their licensed products.

Resin model parts are not the only aftermarket offerings available in the world marketplace. You can name any number of items out there that there are aftermarket parts for. Everything from custom or replacement car parts and accessories (a HUGE market in itself), aircraft parts, bicycle accessories, crafting accessories and bits for motorized workbench tools, habitrail add-ons, computer peripherals, software, etc., etc. The list goes on and on. You name a product (many of them licensed) and someone will have created and marketed some sort of accessory for it.

Most companies love this stuff to be available in order to stir additional sales of their own products that otherwise they would lose out on. The only sticking point with licensors are for unlicensed products to be advertised carrying a particular "official" trademarked brand name or logo on the package (i.e. STAR TREK, STAR WARS, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, and so forth). This can open them up for potential product liability and lawsuits from accidental misuse or injury of a product that is marketed in "official" packaging. They don't like that. So, if you steer clear of any such official-sounding or looking packaging (like most aftermarket companies do), then you should be okay.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

Something to think about...

When I released the Jupiter 2 Crew kit 2 years ago, no, I didn't get permission from the Irwin Allen estate, Fox, Guy Williams' estate, June Lockhart, Mark Goddard, Marta Kristen, Angela Cartwright, Bill Mumy, or the estate of Jonathan Harris.

In actual fact, I didn't originally set out to make a kit at all. The project started because *I* wanted a set for *MY* Jupiter 2 model. Then I started thinking that it was a lot of work to put into something that most people would never have gotten to see. So I asked if anyone was interested and for suggestions from the members of these forums (and many of their suggestions were incorporated into the kit).

Sculpting took from August 2002 to the day they left for Alchemy Works to be cast (maybe April 2003).

Within weeks of release, the kit was recast in Asia and for sale on ebay. Was I pissed? *YOU BET*!

While I admittedly did not have licensing rights, the work was indeed original. After 9 months of headaches & eye strain, X-Acto cuts, reworking the masters or starting over to include better likenesses or ideas, the great rapport & feedback from the folks at these 'boards, I was furious to see somebody take an original they bought on ebay and recast my work to line their pockets with no creativity, thought or work on their part.

To compound my anger, the recasts were laughable and I had to listen to sh!t from disgruntled buyers thinking they had purchased an original. Try explaining the concept of recasting to somebody who isn't into this hobby at the level most of us are. I can tell you, it's an exercise in futility.

As I have posted elsewhere, that episode caused me to suspend production of the kit and cancel 2 follow on projects. Given that my target market was pretty much just the people here at HobbyTalk, if you were a Lost In Space fan, then you lost 2 other kits that would've been nice companion pieces to the Jupiter 2. I only lost some sleep over it (trust me...I *WASN'T* getting rich).

Recasting hurts EVERYBODY.

My 2 cents...


----------



## ChrisDoll (Sep 2, 1999)

Funny thing - I've got a PNT Models ENNEX-O-One sitting here in my office. It won a Merit Award as a contest entry at Wonderfest several years ago, but to the best of my recollection, it wasn't a licensed kit. Just sayin'


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I doubt the contest judges give a rat's patootie where you bought the model or whether everyone got their share of the licensing fees. They're only looking at how well the model has been built and detailed.


----------



## uss_columbia (Jul 15, 2003)

swhite228 said:


> I find it funny that people are hot to defend their items when they are breaking someone's copyright.


I think it's important to distinguish between being technically illegal and obviously morally wrong and the infinite range between. When the courts consider copyright infringement cases, they must carefully evaluate whether it was a fair use and if not the extent of the damages. It's not a case of black and white.

The lighter shades of gray belong to those handcrafting models or add-on parts. The blacker shades are for recasters. Someone recasting small portions of a whole, for example modifying a kit part then casting the resulting accurized part (for others) is somewhere in the middle.



> And just because the kit might be used to modify a kit already on the market doesn't allow the maker to use the license from the origional kit.


This is technically true; however, the replacement part has no value without the larger whole so the infringement is relatively minor. And certainly the consumer of the replacement part is able to use the license from the original kit to build a whole, even if it does include an aftermarket part.



> Anyone making Trek parts(lighting kits included) got the ok from Paramount?


I don't see how lighting kits could be included. They don't duplicate any copyrighted material; they merely fit inside licensed kit models. No infringement, no license needed.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

I try to take the moral highground since getting to know so many of the GK kit and decal folks here, it's not some faceless corporation getting screwed by recasters, it's guys like the Sarge.(I'm not really into building Trek so I don't follow those threads too closely). I don't buy anything from Thailand or the Philipines. I wouldn't buy anything where I knew somebody was getting ripped off. I've emailed a few kit makers & decal makers about stuff on the e-place that looked a little too familiar. I didn't buy a _Nautilus_ I _really_ wanted after reading about it's history from WB Nemo.

As far as the garage industry affecting Paramount-Monogram-Lucasfilms-Polar Lights, my attitude is pretty much let the demand be satisfied. If 20th Century Fox doesn't want to make money off a _Proteus _ model, well hoorah for the Sarge. If Revell Monogram didn't think it was worth the cost of selling decal sheets for all those ol' BSG kits still out there, then bully for JT and Hines for making a few bucks and supplying a demand. If Polar Lights didn't think anybody'd pay for lighted Enterprise models, then three cheers for the lighting kit guys.

'Course you gotta be realistic too. I bought a started model of the _Nostromo_ on the e-place, when it arrived I discovered not only was it started by a chimpanzee, but it was a resin recast of the Halcyon vinyl kit. Am I going to throw it away? No.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

After just sitting through a Media Law class talking about copyright law, I'm going to go out on a limb and say (in my very unprofessional opinion - don't take this as gospel), that those who make detailing parts would have a good argument for "fair use" rights. I'll bounce the idea off of my professor next week and see what she thinks.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

spe130 said:


> After just sitting through a Media Law class talking about copyright law, I'm going to go out on a limb and say (in my very unprofessional opinion - don't take this as gospel), that those who make detailing parts would have a good argument for "fair use" rights. I'll bounce the idea off of my professor next week and see what she thinks.


There was a very large discussion on the RPF about what was and wasn't fair use. 
The lawers there and on other boards are quick to point out that there are limits to fair use and making or selling detailing parts isn't one of them.

You can copy a few paragraphs from a book, you can play a part of a scene from a show, you can play 30 seconds of a song. Copy the book,play the whole show or record and your asking for it. God forbid you are doing it in a public forum! Make anything that produces the Enterprise, Galactica, or any other copyright item(even lighting kits) and selling them can get you into a large pile of dung. It is the same with the non cannon items. If you hold up a ship and people say "Trek" Paramount could ( and has done) slap a c&d on you.

The odds are that unless you are causing a problem nothing will happen, but you never know.


If you want to have fun with your teacher ask why Disney sued a ton of day care centers for painting their characters on the walls. Then ask them to pay a $20 per school license fee to keep the paintings.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

uss_columbia said:


> I think it's important to distinguish between being technically illegal and obviously morally wrong and the infinite range between. When the courts consider copyright infringement cases, they must carefully evaluate whether it was a fair use and if not the extent of the damages It's not a case of black and white.


It isn't a fair use question, if the end result is a copyright item then the part is probably isn't legal...If I sell you a set of windshield wipers it's ok. If I sell the same set as "correct set for building your light saber" then LFL will probably have my auction killed.



> The lighter shades of gray belong to those handcrafting models or add-on parts. The blacker shades are for recasters. Someone recasting small portions of a whole, for example modifying a kit part then casting the resulting accurized part (for others) is somewhere in the middle.


Yes!



> This is technically true; however, the replacement part has no value without the larger whole so the infringement is relatively minor. And certainly the consumer of the replacement part is able to use the license from the original kit to build a whole, even if it does include an aftermarket part


.

Yes and No, Monogram pays Boeing for the right to make a kit of one of their planes.
Boing has final say on what is produced. They both agree, we get kit. I want an XXb, c, d not the XXa that Boeing ok'd. I buy the parts from xy models and build the plane I wanted. My license from Monogram is to build the XXa- it's the only license they can offer!
Would Boeing go after you or me for building the model-no!, it's bad pr.
Would Boeing go after XY Models for an unlicensed kit-depends on their legal dept.




> I don't see how lighting kits could be included. They don't duplicate any copyrighted material; they merely fit inside licensed kit models. No infringement, no license needed


They help produce a protected item again windshield wipers vs saber parts.

Let me say that I'm not trying to get anyone bent out of shape here. I just find it strange to be trying to figure out who the bad guys are when we also are breaking laws. The question I raised was just that... a question.

Thanks to all for the imput. It's a black and white world, but as we see here it's loaded with gray.
Scott 

To be fair, I own an accurate A-B deck for my Enterprise( and Sparkchaser warp lights), I have a Wilco Commlock(thanks again!), a Debore Enterprise,and Web Games Federation decal sets.
Now to find time to use them!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

spe130 said:


> After just sitting through a Media Law class talking about copyright law, I'm going to go out on a limb and say (in my very unprofessional opinion - don't take this as gospel), that those who make detailing parts would have a good argument for "fair use" rights. I'll bounce the idea off of my professor next week and see what she thinks.


I'd personally prefer if you didn't, and strongly ask that you do not.

Most law professors, if not lawyers themselves want to be and would love to dredge up business form themselves - i.e. read "litigation."

I would hate to see a bunch of GK companies, GK makers, shut down because you decided to ask a lawyer about a part of the law that is rarely prosecuted.

As has been pointed out time and time and time and time again, all of this is illegal.

There is no real gray area here as far as the law is concerned.

Asking your lawyer friend about a part of the law that is under-prosecuted can accomplish what? 

Tell us it's illegal? We already know that.

About the only thing that could be changed by you asking her is that she digs and shines attention on something none of us want attention brought to.

I'm happy to remain ignorant of your law professor's opinion and keep on buying accuratizing parts and garage kits that are available now where else.

So please feel free to *not* ask her.
It's all illegal.
No new information and nothing good can be accomplished from involving a lawyer.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

swhite228 said:


> There was a very large discussion on the RPF about what was and wasn't fair use.
> The lawers there and on other boards are quick to point out that there are limits to fair use and making or selling detailing parts isn't one of them.
> 
> You can copy a few paragraphs from a book, you can play a part of a scene from a show, you can play 30 seconds of a song. Copy the book,play the whole show or record and your asking for it. God forbid you are doing it in a public forum! Make anything that produces the Enterprise, Galactica, or any other copyright item(even lighting kits) and selling them can get you into a large pile of dung. It is the same with the non cannon items. If you hold up a ship and people say "Trek" Paramount could ( and has done) slap a c&d on you.
> ...


Unless someone awakens the legal profession's attention to a vastly under-litigated area.

Lawyers are always looking for a the next "big area" or specialty of the law that little attention has been previously paid to, Bankruptcy Law, Maritime Law, no-contest Divorce, on and on ad infinitum.

Personally I'd prefer that spe130 didn't ask his law teacher about any of this. I don't know of too many situations that have been improved by involving lawyers. And I don't think hearing her opinion on the under-litigated subject is worth it.

It's all illegal. No need for more opinions from lawyers.


----------



## Orne (Feb 23, 1999)

F91, Nightsky, swhite28 - check the photo on the link below. Mr. Barris knows about the kits, since he has one of the first Batura kits I began making in 1989. Is this the response of someone who's pissed off?

http://groups.msn.com/InfinityReach/batura.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=58

If you want to purchase a Batura kit, or any number of the similar 1/25 scale kits I've seen on the web, then do so. Leave the legal BS to lawyers trying to impress the owners of some huge corporate entity aching to bury the garage-kit market in it's entirety. (Aerospace companies are using the same logic in their attempts to collect humongous licensing fees for F-15 and B-52 models from the likes of Revell and Hasegawa - how long before it becomes too expensive to pay off the fees and those kits are no longer produced?)

The original kit and the six subsequent versions of the kit since then were created solely by me (and I did have prior permission from Mr. Barris to create them, and since a judge had already made the decision that Mr. Barris did indeed own the patent-rights to the car-design itself, his permission was the only one that mattered). The original kit has been recast by at least the two parties I'm aware of (the first I strongly recommend shouldn't be dealt with at any cost due to his past criminal background).


http://groups.msn.com/InfinityReach/blackbeauty.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=273\

http://groups.msn.com/InfinityReach/blackbeauty.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=347

http://groups.msn.com/InfinityReach/blackbeauty.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=283

Before any other speculation gets started, I gave Dean Jefferies the original Armored Imperial I built (see above), and several of the kits, and also created the revised master for a die-cast kit he was going to produce (that's another story, one which I chose not to be involved with following delivery of the master). I'm not even making the original kit anymore as part of the deal for the latter one, if and when it happens, but does that mean I should allow the kit to be recast? I haven't made a dime off the kit myself in over ten years, but I did create it.

And next time anyone chooses to make unfounded accusations about my efforts, do so to my face, not from behind an anonymous keyboard. As frets and Griffworks pointed out, everyone who buys a garage kit is in a grey area......what matters here is that each of the original masters took nine months of my life to create, yet the recasters bought them and knocked them off overnight. If you know it's a recast, don't give them your money: no profit, no existence.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

swhite228 said:


> Let me say that I'm not trying to get anyone bent out of shape here. I just find it strange to be trying to figure out who the bad guys are when we also are breaking laws.


That's because we're the Han Solo's of the modeling world! And like Han, we try to do the right thing, but have little use for imperial rules and regulations.


----------



## The-Nightsky (May 10, 2005)

Orne said:


> And next time anyone chooses to make unfounded accusations about my efforts, do so to my face, not from behind an anonymous keyboard. As frets and Griffworks pointed out, everyone who buys a garage kit is in a grey area......what matters here is that each of the original masters took nine months of my life to create, yet the recasters bought them and knocked them off overnight. If you know it's a recast, don't give them your money: no profit, no existence.


I dont believe f91,swhite28 or myself made ANY accusations about YOU! If anything I applaud you for getting that kit out there and getting Mr.Barris' permission.thats wonderful.I was actually referring to the numerous "knock-offs" out there.I myself have converted 2 futuras to (i dont wanna get in trouble) Batmobiles.And i can definitly understand your animosity towards recasters,but you can lose the attitude towards us 3!You have done a great service to the modelling community and I think your work is spectacular.Your armored imperial is great,Im a big fan of that car and the bat vehicle.I espescialy like the custom paint in the one pic of your armored imperial,So as far as Im concerned,I have no beef w/you.Peace.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

[email protected] Don't want to break any forum rules!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I feel a locked thread coming on...

Nighteagle2001, Wbnemo1 and many others have brought some specific info to our attention.

That's great. But let's not let it degenerate into flaming.

Other then specific kits, sellers, and incidences of recasting, is there really any more substantitively we can say about this subject?

The subject of GK and accuratizing parts makers is really seperate from that of recasters.

Though it can be said that both are technically _disallowed by law_.

To sum up: recasters = bad
GK and accuratizing part makers = most of us like(regardless of the legalities).

Other then that, is there a lot more to say on the subject?


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

Orne,
I wasn't taking a shot at you.
You have gone above and beyond in getting someone to say yes it's ok with me to model my work. It's something that a large portion of the gk community never bothers with.

What I was trying to point out was that even with Barris giving his ok he doesn't have the full rights to the car. Monogram has for years wanted to repop the batmobile but they never have gotten all the folks who hold copyrights on the car to say yes at the same time. Barris doesn't own the rims, parachute packs, tires, or the art work for the car. It's the same with Jeffers and the Black Beauty. 

Court rulings taken in account if Barris was the only one that needed to say yes to the project Monogram, and maybe Polar Lights would have done the model.

I'm sorry if I seemed to pick on you or your work.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^ Andrew Probert did use the logo and a couple of other FJ stuff as a homage to Franz Joseph in TMP. He did let FJ know about it, whether he got permission before or after the fact is unclear from Franz Joseph's notes. But he did invite FJ to the STTMPicture set and even took a pic with him.

In the case of Roddenberry, it seems he was the only one ever confused during the early 70's as to who owned the rights to Trek. Paramount answered that question to FJ almost instantly after Roddenberry had been leading him on and didn't answer that question for months and months.

But your point remains salient on the Batmobile, however. Ownership of the rights is still in dispute.

But I personally couldn't care less. Orne has a great product that wouldn't be available otherwise.

All this goes to point 2 above: 
"GK and accuratizing part makers = most of us like(regardless of the legalities)."


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

Thanks for the logo info! 
And I agree with everything else!
Scott


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

My understanding regarding the rights to the Batmobile and the problems therein have to do with 20th Century Fox (producers of the television show) and Warner Brothers (owners of DC Comics and Batman), not the rims or the parachute packs.


----------



## Orne (Feb 23, 1999)

F91 asked a valid question, did Mr. Barris know about the kit ? Yes - and in 1989, no one else was interested in turning out a mass-market kit of the car for nearly ten years that I'm aware of, so there was no reason to ask anyone else their permission, and WB's only interest in the car at the time was to literally lay claim to it and erase it from existence, since it was a rival design to the movie versions they were merchandising. There was a similar situation with the Black Beauty, which only changed in the years after I delivered the B.B. master to Dean Jefferies. I'll concede that no one was accusing me personally, but Nightsky and swhite28 jumped to the assumption on this board that Mr. Barris would not be happy that I was marketing a kit based upon his design, a statement that can be misinterpreted in the negative by many people who read it; did either contact Mr. Barris about the Batura, or Dean Jefferies about the Armored Imperial, and verify that they would be unhappy about the existence of my kits, before putting their opinions on the board? (Both of the car-designers can be reached by phone - CA phonebook lists the numbers of their respective shops.)

As I said before, I haven't even marketed the Armored Imperial kit for years and years (if you come across a kit with a fresh resin smell to it, it's definitely a recast). Frankly, since I was able to photograph and sketch every detail of the original car while it was being restored at Jefferies Automotive Styling shop, the master of the Black Beauty is far superior to the original A.I. kit I created; ditto for the Batura Gen 7 kit I'm producing now, when compared to the original kit that has been recast.) 

By the way, I have no idea where so many people get the impression that Rebellion Creations is a huge company (kind of flattering in its way) with a staff of people churning out garage-kits. Unfortunately, because I can't call in a crew to sub for me when I have to deal with an illness in the family or some other crisis, I am the entire operation - everything from the original masters to the finished kits packed and taken out for shipping goes through my hands alone - and I don't even have a garage to work in.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

captain april, youre absolutly correct about the batmobile copyright situation.

this subject has been beated to death on many forums over the years. my stance on is fairly unpopular. intellectual property is intellectual property, np matter who owns it, so whether a garage kit manufacturer is more "morally correct" than a recaster is very similar to debating whether stealing an air compressor from a sears store is more "morally correct" that stealing one from sombody's garage. 

ive only sklimmed this thread, but i'm fairly certain the answer to one of the questions raised is lighting kits: legal, accurizing kits/parts: illegal. 

theres really no answer in this debate. it really comes down to how much hypocracy and rationalization/ justification one is willing to tolerate in ones self.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Ever buy an unlicensed kit (complete or accurizing)? If so, point that hypocritical finger at yourself, too.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

> I'll concede that no one was accusing me personally, but Nightsky and swhite28 jumped to the assumption on this board that Mr. Barris would not be happy that I was marketing a kit based upon his design, a statement that can be misinterpreted in the negative by many people who read it; did either contact Mr. Barris about the Batura, or Dean Jefferies about the Armored Imperial


I don't think any of my post could be taken as Barris isn't happy. My understanding is he likes to see his cars modeled. I did not contact either party as my guestion was to be a general aftermarket type question.

I have been watching your recasting fight for a few years now and think the recasters should be shot! I have also wanted one for a while (Batmobile), the only thing slowing me down is a stupid love of studio scale modeling. I have a garage full of old kits that cost way too much, that I only need 1 or 2 parts from.  

The fact that you took the time to even ask anyone if it would be ok makes me want the kit that much more!


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

> ive only sklimmed this thread, but i'm fairly certain the answer to one of the questions raised is lighting kits: legal, accurizing kits/parts: illegal.


Whats the difference? A lighting kit is an accurizing kit. 

A light kit with 2white leds, 2 red leds, 4 yellow leds (that flash) can be used for a car OR it might turn up an that Craft Death Match show being used as a Christmas ornament. 1 use gray, 1 clear.

A light kit for your 18 inch Enterprise with warp spin, and running lights. very gray.

imho
Scott

again for the record

I own an accurate A-B deck for my Enterprise( and Sparkchaser warp lights), I have a Wilco Commlock(thanks again!), a Debore Enterprise,and Web Games Federation decal sets. So I'm as guilty as the next person!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Ever buy an unlicensed kit (complete or accurizing)? If so, point that hypocritical finger at yourself, too.


Or even downloaded/read free fan fiction, for that matter, it's still an actionable offense.

Everybody place their moralizing R.P.G.'s and other holier-than-thou weapons on the table and back away slowly...


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

I think perhaps this thread has drifted from the topic.

While Thomas' (and others) crafting a part that did not as yet exist is of dubious legality. The person (or persons) who would then take one of those parts, recast it, and pass it of as their own is sleazy to say the least (while also being of dubious legality).


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> I think perhaps this thread has drifted from the topic.


True.

It doesn't seem to be serving any usefull purpose anymore, other then dividing some people. Which is what I feared would happen.

Capt. Locknar, I know you prefer to not resort to locks, etc.
But is there much more point to keeping this thread going?

I vote for getting back to the more fun stuff, like modeling, whether it be 3D or physical.


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

I will have to agree on this one. I will lock this thread as there are many posts in this thread that someone can look at to see valid points on this. 

It seems every six months someone starts a recasting thread and I think from now on we won't deal with any of those. there are many points and places on the net that someone can find out more information on recasting and it seems bringing it up on bulleting boards only adds to the fires. 

If anyone is still interested in recasting, do a search on yahoo for it. Leave it off the boards please. Thank you.


----------

