# Another discussion involving the ethics of recasting



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

Is it wrong to buy a recast of an unlicensed kit? Why do some feel it`s wrong to buy recasts but at the same time they think nothing is wrong with buying recasted replacement parts.9 out of 10 Predator or Alien kits are unlicensed.Why do collectors not think they are taking money out of someone elses pocket by buying these? I know I`m opening a can of worms here but I`m curious what other people think of this.You will see on sites like this a description"This site does not condone recasting" But there is never any mention of "We do not condone unlicensed kits". Why is that? It`s stealing just as much as recasting does.I bet most of us have at least 1 unlicensed kit in our collections.Pot meet kettle.I get the feeling this is going to be a long thread. lol
:freak:


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

It`s threads like this that make forums fun.And that means shaking some feathers.:tongue::devil:


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

the problem is that its a dead horse, and stirs loads of people up needlessly. do a search on the topic and see what you find.


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

Or, you could ask Scott McKillop from Monarch HIS take on recasting AND unlicensed kits since his upcoming Dracula kit is BOTH. He reverse engineered the molds from an Aurora original (which Revell still has the MAJORITY of the tooling for) and it is NOT* licensed by Universal (who own the character design); talk about killing two birds with one stone! He's not on the forums much, but I hear he has a "Facebook" page. :thumbsup:
This COULD be a fun thread! AND informative (I LOVE a WIN/WIN!) But most likely it will devolve quickly as Razorwyre suggests, so perhaps we should leave the feathers unshaken just this once.
Tom

* At least there has been no INDICATION of any licensing agreement. Perhaps when the kit is released in 20__ (fill in the blank) this will have changed.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

We hash this one out every few months over at Starship Modeler - you might wanna search out one of the old threads over there too, for fun.

Most peoples' take is that if some poor fella slaved over the masters for a resin kit, put his own heart, money and talent into it, then it's wrong for someone else to just slap some rubber on his kit, make some more, and sell it for his own profit.

The flip side of that argument is that if this poor kitmaker is making an unlicensed kit of someone else's intellectual property, he himself has no moral ground to stand on, so tough noogies if he gets ripped off.

The end result, though, is that this poor fella gets fed up of losing money to the cheap ripoffs, throws his hands up and quits the biz (see Geometric) (who, btw, always made _licensed _kits). So then we ALL lose, 'cause we won't be getting good resin kits any more, licensed or not.


----------



## ERVysther (May 2, 2009)

I'll add my two cents:

If it's something that's long since gone - i.e.: no longer in production by a company defunct, etc. - I really don't have issues with it...I mean, if it's a for a private collectors/builders, and the recaster is not ripping folks off, I have no problems with it.

...it's when you get someone make cheap knock offs of current stuff and making a bundle off of them that my nose gets out of joint.


----------



## mcdougall (Oct 28, 2007)

My take on this is that the GK industry evolved simply because no major model companies were making figure kits, licensed or not, but there were still guys like us that wanted to build and paint figure models... and so it began and some very talented artists and sculptors stepped up and created beautiful replications of our favorite Monsters, Villans, Super Heros etc... and they sold :thumbsup: Then the recaster stepped in, and stole someones original work (wheather a known or unknown subject) and made cheap knock-offs, and as with most copies of a copy the quality slipped ie: softer detail, more flash,air bubbles, etc. I've seen a lot of recasts and the vast majority of them are honestly a distant poor cousin when compared to the Original copy. So here in lies the dilema...the major Model companies didn't want to make figure kits, the demand was there, GK was born, and the make-a-buck-recaster followed....It took years but the owners of the licenses finally caught up to the fact that there was money to be made from 'us' and so the recent C&D blizzard...
...Now we are hobbiests, and we fill seams and do minor resculpting while working on our kits, and I've found that if I needed a part or two from an OOP (out of production) kit let's say, Wonder Womans left arm , and someone on these forums has a recast copy in a Pit of Parts, well I see nothing wrong in aquiring this part to help complete my kit, and I've actually recast a few Bones and Bats myself to customize a kit, but I did it for myself or a buddy who was trying to complete his kit and no other source could be found, but never for a profit.
Lately styrene has made a come back (YAY) and some cool companies like Moebius , Monarch and Polar Lights have produced some outstanding New and Old Favorite kits that are either Licensed like the Mummy or in the Public Domain, like Nosferatu...and I'm a very happy camper in lieu of this unexpected return to my childhood....So in my books Recasting entire kits, Licensed or not, is a ripoff of everyones talents an efforts where as After Market items are accessories and only enhance the licensed kit, no harm...no foul...:thumbsup: 
Mcdee


----------



## ochronosis (Dec 29, 2005)

Hi Guys,
I know it is probably wrong and people will hate me for this  but, I own a couple recast kits which I bought because the company had long gone out of business and I can't afford the extortionate prices that the kits are now fetching.

Simon


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

John P said:


> We hash this one out every few months over at Starship Modeler - you might wanna search out one of the old threads over there too, for fun.
> 
> Most peoples' take is that if some poor fella slaved over the masters for a resin kit, put his own heart, money and talent into it, then it's wrong for someone else to just slap some rubber on his kit, make some more, and sell it for his own profit.
> 
> ...


This my point exactly.You hear collectors groan about recasting but never hear anyone talk about unlicensed stuff.Same meat different animal.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

Bwain no more said:


> Or, you could ask Scott McKillop from Monarch HIS take on recasting AND unlicensed kits since his upcoming Dracula kit is BOTH. He reverse engineered the molds from an Aurora original (which Revell still has the MAJORITY of the tooling for) and it is NOT* licensed by Universal (who own the character design); talk about killing two birds with one stone! He's not on the forums much, but I hear he has a "Facebook" page. :thumbsup:
> This COULD be a fun thread! AND informative (I LOVE a WIN/WIN!) But most likely it will devolve quickly as Razorwyre suggests, so perhaps we should leave the feathers unshaken just this once.
> Tom
> 
> * At least there has been no INDICATION of any licensing agreement. Perhaps when the kit is released in 20__ (fill in the blank) this will have changed.


Where did you get this info? I run both his page & his group & he has never ever brought up any Dracula kit.He`s busy chasing the guys over seas that are tooling the Ghost & Sinbad Kits.He doesn`t have time to fart right now.


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

bizzarobrian said:


> This my point exactly.You hear collectors groan about recasting but never hear anyone talk about unlicensed stuff.Same meat different animal.


Two totally different animals there.
Yes, both are illegal. But they are by no means equal.
A recaster creates nothing. They just copy someone elses work. And usually quite poorly, and by using as cheap a materials as they possibly can.
Someone producing unlicensed kits my be using someones elses idea (character, ship, etc) but they are creating the piece. There is someone sculpting the master. Either as screen accurate as possible, or with their own artistic twist. But they are creating a unique piece of art.

Unlicensed kits hurt no one.
Most product runs are in the low 2 digit range. No where near enough to even put a dent in any mass market merchandise sales. And things like add-on kits, and mod-kits actually help sales of legitimate items, as people have to buy them in order to use the more accurate parts. Sometime buying multiples so they can have build-ups of multiple versions.
The only reason the big corps even bother sending notices to the garage kit guys is because they have to. If they don't protect their licenses, then they could loose them.

Recasts on the other hand do a lot of harm to the hobby.
First they undercut the original producers, so they cannot even recoupe the costs of bringing their original kit to market. Which eventually puts them out of business. 
For the most part, recasts are poor copies of the originals. And the recasters don't care about quality. So you end up with things that don't have the detail, have casting problems like voids, bubbles, pealing, leaching, warping, and multiple seam lines.
All these problems cause modelers more trouble when building. Which turns off many new enthusiasts. They leave the hobby, which then cuts down on the available market for the legit producers.


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

No matter what always buy Original kits Unlicensed or not and stay as far away from a recasts as possible.If i can do it so can the rest of you!


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

When I got back into our hobby a few years ago, the first few resin and vinyl kits I bought were, unbeknownst to me, recasts. I soon learned of recasts and researched and discovered a major can of worms. 

The least of the outrages was that recasts simply rip off the original artist -who very likely created his 'art' as a 'work for hire', was paid once and never saw another dime from the producer. Perhaps the rare artist gets a pittance of a percentage of sales but like our music industry, it is truly a pittance. Then there were the outrageous claims of recasters actually being criminal fronts, funding all sorts of evil doings. Both extremes are likely true to some degree and largely false in others. Blanket statements and admonishment does no one any good.

In my case, I knowingly continued buying some recast figures for a time as I was turning them into maquette prototypes for a feature film franchise I am developing. I cant' sculpt well enough to create figures and the recasts became a shortcut as the figures were easily hacked into my characters. I would not be re-re-casting these. These are samples to show media execs what 'could' be. The irony that if I did sell my movie/tv series, recasters would be making a wad off of my work, is not lost on me...

Why not buy the originals and mod those? Well, for something I was going to hack to pieces, the price not being worth it is the least consideration. Many have thrown the word 'art' around. Well, as a fine artist myself, we have inherent rights to our work even after it's sold. If you commission me to do an oil portrait or some such, you then modify (yourself or by someone else's hand), copy and distruibute, or even destroy it, I still have rights to legally come after you for damages to me. Whereas, if I as an artist do a work-for-hire piece, you own it outright and I waive all future rights. I would not deface a work of art that some of these kits are. 

...

But the fact is 'collectors' are called collectors for a reason. They have the COA, they seek the legitimacy of the piece. A forgery is simply a forgery. 

And just as there are folks who will always want a band's latest cd, there are semi-fans that just want to share in the music. a few dozen years ago, we used to build music shared tape collections. Those were recasts.

So too w/ models. A true collector will shun the recast, while a fan or even a casual observer who simply likes the design may simply want to get one w/o paying an exorbident fee for the privilege. 

In my case, I was turning established anime figures into 'fictional' mockups. This can't be done with, say, an unlicensed studio scale resin tie fighter. If Lucas released an ss tie and another guy crafted his own and a third simply recasts Lucas', I would want to get Lucas', would settle for the other guy's and would hate to get the recast. My decision would come down to my desire for the model and the money I had, or would ever likely have, or be able to afford.

...

I think the idea that these unlicensed properties sell in the low 2 digits is lowballed. I think I can assure you that these GK'ers don't spend months of their lives slaving away for peanuts. They make a time/money calculation just like a company like moebius or polar lights. If they don't think they can make some kind of profit, however small, they don't do it. Further, many of these GK'ers have had some of their kits in production for years. Low hundreds is likely a more accurate number for many g. kits. Some like a DeBoer may indeed be dozens in the world, but others like the SS xwing? I bet there are hundreds of those around. And at ~$300 a pop, you do the math. A $600 star destroyer at, say, 50 sold... The numbers get HUGE!

As to recasts of oops, well, a recast is a recast and if you are against any, you should be against all, even if a small part. You can always find an original kit on ebay at some point. That comes down to the syncronicity of you looking when they are around. If you can't afford one at the time, well, that is that. You don't get one. Replacement recasts are handy, but again, a recast part is a recast part. And if it's truly a small part, one should be able to re-create it oneself.

As to unlicensed vs. recasts, the owner of the property is still being 'ripped off'. In this way, they are *exactly* the same.

Additionally, anyone who has ever gotten an mp3 from a friend or coworker, watched an avi of a film instead of the dvd, or gotten that copy of software you wanted/needed, or much less even downloaded same yourself, you are dealing with 'recasts'.

Finally, the notion that recasters are 'evil' is one of the more absurd statements that can be made. 

Personally, I would prefer to save up for an original. I am in a position where I can do so and the gratification of saving intensifies the purchase/ownership satisfaction. However, I would never begrudge any for getting or owning recasts. Society doesn't need more bitter intolerance.

IMHO, of course.


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

BizzaroBrian; I am actually too busy to fart right now myself, but I will take the time to post this image that appeared on HobbyTalk over a year ago. It is of test shots from the molds Monarch produced based on two Canadian issue Monster Scenes kits (the other was the Jekyll/Hyde). Box art for these has also appeared, but I do not have it saved on my desktop. Feel free to grab this and post it on your Facebook page or wherever you like, but if memory serves, after it was posted here, it went missing very quickly...I'm not a big fan of Monarch so I don't follow the goings on of the company too closely, but I'm sure there are folks here who can bring you up to speed. 
Tom


----------



## gkscalemodels (Sep 19, 2009)

Model Man said:


> When I got back into our hobby a few years ago, the first few resin and vinyl kits I bought were, unbeknownst to me, recasts. I soon learned of recasts and researched and discovered a major can of worms.
> 
> The least of the outrages was that recasts simply rip off the original artist -who very likely created his 'art' as a 'work for hire', was paid once and never saw another dime from the producer. Perhaps the rare artist gets a pittance of a percentage of sales but like our music industry, it is truly a pittance. Then there were the outrageous claims of recasters actually being criminal fronts, funding all sorts of evil doings. Both extremes are likely true to some degree and largely false in others. Blanket statements and admonishment does no one any good.
> 
> ...


Hey ! Let's watch out here about throwing around this " GK " business ! I have personally never (to the best of my knowledge ) sold a recast model kit ( resin , styrene , vinyl , lead - what ever ) . And since everyone here LIKES and WANTS the originals - well boys and girls , I have plenty of em' up for sale on this website right now ! I would be GLAD to sell you some original model kits !

GK


----------



## ochronosis (Dec 29, 2005)

I think he means Garage Kits when referring to GK


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

gkscalemodels said:


> Hey ! Let's watch out here about throwing around this " GK " business ! I have personally never (to the best of my knowledge ) sold a recast model kit ( resin , styrene , vinyl , lead - what ever ) . And since everyone here likes and wants the originals - well boys and girls , I have plenty of em' up for sale on this website right now ! I would be GLAD to sell you some original model kits !
> 
> GK


??? Since you quote me, presumably you are challenging my words. And I have no idea what you are talking about. This isn't personal to you, whoever you are and whatever your product is. There are no accusations in my statement to say gk'ers are recasters or vice versa. The dsitinction previosuly made is that gk'ers craft their own, recasters cast the work of others.

GK'ers rule. I prefer gk models where possible and have supported them with thousands of dollars over the last couple years. 10 out of 10 of my dream kits are hand crafted resin garage kits. I actively seek out gk subjects as the big companies don't cater to this niche market. I do not promote recasters, though plainly admit to having used their product in the most extreme and rare of circumstance.

now let's get dispassionate and logical for a moment.

If a gk'er truly sells 'original' models then that gk'ers imagination generated the design for the models and is the copyright holder of those model designs. If however a gk'er sells a model kit of someone else's design, those models are not 'original' except insofar as the gk'er may have crafted the masters. 

The fact is, unlicensed merch is unlicensed merch and in this specific regard, there is no diff between a recaster and a gk'er. Each profits from a property they do not own and pay no tribute to the true owner. This is why C&D's are targeted at gk'ers. And it is because gk'ers know they are in the wrong that they shut down operations or face legal hazard. If C&D's could be enforced in places such as asia, recasters would be out of business as well.

A gk'er w/ a license to sell copyrighted material is legit. A gk'er w/o a license, no matter how handcrafted the product, is not legit; copyright infringment has been committed and potentially trademark as well. The name of a gk subject and the design can be tweaked to skirt the law, but that is another matter.

The regrettable problem is that few, if any, copyright holders have any concern for limited market we modelers represent -and thus the gk business thrives. I don't mind this. Big Corps can suck an egg as far as I'm concerned. Entity's such as lucasfilm are far too wealthy already. But if LFL released an ss tie, there would be no garage kit available of such model.

The anger at recasters seems to be that they aren't making their own master, but simply copying someone else's work. And that, as far as I can tell, is the only thing that separates a gk'er from a recaster: personal craftsmanship.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

ochronosis said:


> I think he means Garage Kits when referring to GK


I didn't make that connection and 'gkscalemodels' handle. 

GK is the ubiquitous acronym for 'garage kits' and 'garage kit makers'.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

Bwain no more said:


> BizzaroBrian; I am actually too busy to fart right now myself, but I will take the time to post this image that appeared on HobbyTalk over a year ago. It is of test shots from the molds Monarch produced based on two Canadian issue Monster Scenes kits (the other was the Jekyll/Hyde). Box art for these has also appeared, but I do not have it saved on my desktop. Feel free to grab this and post it on your Facebook page or wherever you like, but if memory serves, after it was posted here, it went missing very quickly...I'm not a big fan of Monarch so I don't follow the goings on of the company too closely, but I'm sure there are folks here who can bring you up to speed.
> Tom


I thought we were talking about the first & most famous of the kits.This is the one for club members only.The Canadian one you just mentioned.A license is being sought for that.So it`s no different then what Moebious is doing.Calling it a recast/unlicensed kit is unfair what the other gentleman was saying.:tongue:


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

TAY666 said:


> Two totally different animals there.
> Yes, both are illegal. But they are by no means equal.
> A recaster creates nothing. They just copy someone elses work. And usually quite poorly, and by using as cheap a materials as they possibly can.
> Someone producing unlicensed kits my be using someones elses idea (character, ship, etc) but they are creating the piece. There is someone sculpting the master. Either as screen accurate as possible, or with their own artistic twist. But they are creating a unique piece of art.
> ...


Being a sculptor myself & an artist I can honestly say the artist is getting his money & what the client does with it later is their business.But if the artist is the guy producing the kit himself then he`s losing money.If not it`s actually a form of flattery.Just my spin though.We already have to bite the bullet when we are proud of a piece but the client wants changes.It`s something we all have to accept.


----------



## hedorah59 (Nov 24, 2008)

Recasters steal everything - Licensed kits, unlicensed kits and even original kits. They don't care who they rip off.


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

Bizzaro Brian. Since you are the creator/housekeeper for the Facebook page for Monarch, I thought you would be more familiar with their product(s) and would KNOW the Dracula kit I was talking about, my bad. But now that we are both on the same page, I'm not sure that comparing the upcoming Dracula release to "what Moebius is doing" is fair. For example, Frank Winspur HAS reverse engineered the "Monster Scenes" Frankenstein kit (the same technique used to create tooling for the club exclusive upcoming Monarch release) but he did this AFTER obtaining licensing from Dencomm for the "Monster Scenes" logo AND Universal for the Frankenstein character design. Also, he did NOT copy tooling currently in a (potential) competitor's possession. Worlds apart IMHO. I AM very pleased to hear that Scott is seeking the appropriate license, I wish him luck. :wave: 
Tom


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

bizzarobrian said:


> Being a sculptor myself & an artist I can honestly say the artist is getting his money & what the client does with it later is their business.But if the artist is the guy producing the kit himself then he`s losing money.If not it`s actually a form of flattery.Just my spin though.We already have to bite the bullet when we are proud of a piece but the client wants changes.It`s something we all have to accept.


as a product designer/sculptor myself, i would disagree with the "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" theory with regard to recasting. its one thing for someone to do a painting, drawing, or sculpture in your style, but quite another for someone to reproduce your original as exactly as they can using purely mechanical means, and fobbing them off as their own. further, the fact that they then go into competition with the original producer at a lower price just adds further injury to the insult.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Model Man, I think if you talk to some of the GK producers over at the Starship Modeler boards, they'll tell you that, whatever their production volume might be, they're NOT making a lot of money off this hobby. They're doing it mostly for the love of the hobby, and a lot of them are barely breaking even.


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

I know a lot of GK producers that would love to just break even.
A lot that I know personally don't even reach that level.
They bring these subjects to market because they want to see them out there.
I own several pieces that have had production runs between 10-15 pieces.
Not because they were limited releases, but because that is all that they managed to sell.
Sure, not all kits are that low on production runs. But those ones that sell better help to subsidies the low sellers. So having a recaster come in and undercut your sales is just adding insult to injury.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

hedorah59 said:


> Recasters steal everything - Licensed kits, unlicensed kits and even original kits. They don't care who they rip off.


90% 0f these people are overseas.Check out Ebay.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

Bwain no more said:


> Bizzaro Brian. Since you are the creator/housekeeper for the Facebook page for Monarch, I thought you would be more familiar with their product(s) and would KNOW the Dracula kit I was talking about, my bad. But now that we are both on the same page, I'm not sure that comparing the upcoming Dracula release to "what Moebius is doing" is fair. For example, Frank Winspur HAS reverse engineered the "Monster Scenes" Frankenstein kit (the same technique used to create tooling for the club exclusive upcoming Monarch release) but he did this AFTER obtaining licensing from Dencomm for the "Monster Scenes" logo AND Universal for the Frankenstein character design. Also, he did NOT copy tooling currently in a (potential) competitor's possession. Worlds apart IMHO. I AM very pleased to hear that Scott is seeking the appropriate license, I wish him luck. :wave:
> Tom


He`s very sensitive about the issue.Ever since somebody mentioned that he was burning FM magazine for that post guard he is in the process of talking to him & clearing things up.I`ve never personally met Scott but we talk online all the time.He`s trying his best to make us all happy about the hobby.He cares about all you people.He`s working really hard trying to get these Sinbad & GHost kits out & feels bad about the long delays.It appears to be communication problems with the tooling people overseas.Almost like he has to be right there at all times to light a fire under their ass.Alot of pressure that`s why he doesn`t come here much.He feels bad about the delays & just wants to getter done & he`s picky about parts that don`t fit tight. Personally I enjoy filling in the odd seam here & there.You fans will not be disappointed by the outcome.Sinbad is a master works.There`s been some good feedback on the Moonsuit & the Gorgo.Thanks for your patience everyone! I`ll keep you posted as soon as I hear news.


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

bizzarobrian said:


> 90% 0f these people are overseas.Check out Ebay.


Some of them are right here in our own backyard along with their supporters!


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

I'm not a great sculptor by any means, but I took the GK plunge a few years back. I sculpted, molded, and cast and pakaged, including box art and intructions on two different kits. I was a one man show! LOL. I sold about 22 copies of one and about 17 of the other. I didnt lose money, but I only made about $150-$200 total profits for all the time invested and resin fumes breathed. I dont see how producers that have to pay sculptors, mold makers and graphic artists can make any money, I'm not surprized that they often go under, sometimes oweing lots of people money..I dont like recasts, they do rip off the artist.I did a few busts for Fatman, (now defunct) I think I got $50 a bust from fatman, in fact I dont think I ever collected all the money LOL...I see recasts of the moleman on ebay from time to time. It sucks but what can you do?


----------



## hedorah59 (Nov 24, 2008)

bizzarobrian said:


> 90% 0f these people are overseas.Check out Ebay.


That still leaves 10% that are here.


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

hedorah59 said:


> That still leaves 10% that are here.


Exactly!


----------



## Todd P. (Apr 12, 2007)

I'm not ever going to apologize for calling Scott McKillop a friend or for cheering on Monarch. I'm also not going to say it hasn't been a really long time between kits or tell people they don't have a right to be frustrated.

I'm not a Monarch representative. Very little that I say about Monarch should be taken as "official" information. Scott's a friend, he has occasionally told me things or given me photos. When this is the case, I say so.

Clear?

I suspect the same thing is true of "bizzarobrian". He'd have to tell you the background of his Facebook group, but he doesn't work for Monarch. At least, I don't think so. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize.

So, when he comes here to defend recasting, a position I find just as outrageous and irritating as anyone else here, I don't think it's fair to drag Monarch into the fray. "Bizzarobrian" speaks for himself.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm just going to remind everyone to Play Nice. That goes for both sides of the discussion. Thus far, it's remained pretty civil and I appreciate that. 

Before you post in anger, step away from your 'puter for a half an hour or something, then come back and think some more before you do. Re-read the Help/TOS. 

The gist of things here at Hobby Talk are: Play Well With Others and Don't Use Bad Language. 

_Playing Well With Others_ means no baiting. That's called TROLLING. 

_Don't Use Bad Language_ includes using special characters instead of a full word, such as *** (substitute the at sign and two dollar signs for the asteriks) for the more adult version of the word "posterior". 

Otherwise, if you all can have an adult conversation on the subject, please do so. Once it gets ugly, people will receive a TIME OUT and the thread will be locked. 

So, let's all please act like adults, have an adult conversation and not make someone have to treat those who can't act like adults like children. You don't have to like the other person or what they've got to say, just respect the fact that they have a differing opinion. If you can't be civil, I suggest you move on to other threads. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

John P said:


> Model Man, I think if you talk to some of the GK producers over at the Starship Modeler boards, they'll tell you that, whatever their production volume might be, they're NOT making a lot of money off this hobby. They're doing it mostly for the love of the hobby, and a lot of them are barely breaking even.


No doubts. I talk with a few producers on a semi regular basis. They're glad just to break even, but that doesn't stop them making an initial time/cost/profit calculation. Then there's the examples who don't break even, but keep doing it despite the fact that they keep going. And there are a few that have little other income but there kits.

GK'ers wouldn't do what they do if it wasn't for the love of the hobby or the subject -and that is the bottom line on that for them. I am grateful they do what they do. 

A similar analogy is that I used to go around to craft fairs getting fine art commissions. some folk would balk at prices until I broke the hours down for them. In the end, I was getting ~$10 an hour even though a given work was hundreds or thousands of dollars. The general public has no appreciation for an artist's efforts. Then there were the 'true' craft-crafters with their crafty things that would take them maybe 30 hrs to create and after supplies were getting about a dollar an hour. Bottom line it's for the love of the craft/art. 

Recasters are leeches there is no doubt. Apart from two examples of the top of my head, I've never come across recasts of 'genuine' garage kits -and those 2 were Americans ripping off Americans. I don't know the Japanese market well, but the thai recasters generally seem to do their voodoo on mass market anime? I've yet to see a thai recast of an american garage kit. They easily could do so, I've just never seen an example of such yet. Would like to hear examples of such. 

One notion I would posit for further discussion: a 'cheap' recast is an excellent learning tool? Learning the trials of resin on a several hundred dollar grail kit is not the best idea. Buying a knockoff would seem to take the pressure off -kinda like seeking the services of a prostitute.


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

Model Man said:


> I've yet to see a thai recast of an american garage kit. They easily could do so, I've just never seen an example of such yet. Would like to hear examples of such.
> .


Just look on ebay they have recasted Geometric kits to death and also have recasted Horizon kits and thats just to name a few american garage kit companies.


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

bizzarobrian said:


> 90% 0f these people are overseas.Check out Ebay.


While I agree there is a proliferation of recasts from places like Malaysia and other Pacific rim countries. I doubt they account for 90%.
They are a lot more high-profile as there is little anyone can actually do to them. But I don't think they generate as many sales as people think they do.
There are a lot from areas like Brazil where knock-offs are rampant.
And don't forget the domestic, and European guys. Some of the worst ones are high profile, slick looking companies. With professional looking websites and huge selections of kits and other subjects. They rank very high in search listings and hence bring in a lot of casual fans who have no idea what is original and what are recasts. So they actually produce a good sized volume of actual recast sales.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

wolfman66 said:


> Just look on ebay they have recasted Geometric kits to death and also have recasted Horizon kits and thats just to name a few american garage kit companies.


I see. I hadn't ever thought of Horizon as a 'garage kitter'. Those were sold in retail stores weren't they? Screamin' is another one I suppose. Never heard of Geometric before. I was under the impression those were actual companies. I wouldn't call Round Two or Moebius Garage kits for example, even though they are very few people at those companies.

I guess what I was thinking of in terms of GK'er is a single person crafting their hearts out, such as Captain Cardboard, R. Cooper, Rel, AJAM, Jim Key and so on. I've never heard of a Cpt. C recast for instance.


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

Model Man said:


> I see. I hadn't ever thought of Horizon as a 'garage kitter'. Those were sold in retail stores weren't they? Screamin' is another one I suppose. Never heard of Geometric before. I was under the impression those were actual companies. I wouldn't call Round Two or Moebius Garage kits for example, even though they are very few people at those companies.
> 
> I guess what I was thinking of in terms of GK'er is a single person crafting their hearts out, such as Captain Cardboard, R. Cooper, Rel, AJAM, Jim Key and so on. I've never heard of a Cpt. C recast for instance.


Geo Screamin and Horizon all started out the same until they got the rights to do certain kits.But the thing is when they got recasted those same companies like Marvel,Universal and ect turned turn their back on them when they called upon them to nail the recasters.Plus it doesnt stop their John Tucky at Xofacto one of the best guys in the GK world along with Darkcarnival,Resin Realities ect all have had their kits recasted at one time or another and these are also guys that pour kits in the garage as you call it.


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

Also out of the country kits that have been recasted John Wright at Vision Models great pesron not only to buy from but to talk with and his kits have been recasted as well.Plus another American Garage company that is no longer around but here again gets recasted Janus specially the Mummy kit that they made.I been collecting kits and other things for long time seen kit companies come and go including mine and saw recasts of just about everyone's kits on ebay:freak:.


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

OH and a very well known recaster here in the states MOJORESIN Larry B has recasted Xofacto kits and pretty sure it doesnt stop there and probably wont with him and his little band of thieves


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

Plus recasting doesnt stop there with kits it goes further.My don post Universal masks from the 70's.We got a bunch of thieves that have recasted those aswell trying to pass them off as originals to us collectors.


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

Plus Mego dolls you think they would never recast those.Wrong answer they have recasted those as well passing them off as originals.Will recasting stop yes it can.But with a simple solution stop supporting them and support the guys that make the originals and dont let anyone tell you well its a unlicensed kit that the Producers like John doe is making so they are just like the recasters.That is Bull dodo these guys that make original kits like Trev mentioned dont even break even to cover what they shelled out to make the kit in the first place.Example Randy Bowen charge my Brother 5000.00 to do the Glenn strange tribute kit for the Resinator.Di we break even on it after getting the boxes and ect hell no didnt even come close


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

Now Modelman dont take my ranting personal.But when you got guys pumping out recasts by the truck load of original kits that you have in your collection it would upset you aswell.Specially if one of the Producers that you have the up most respect for in this Hobby has caused him to shut down his website because of these theives and the problems that they have cause in the hobby right now for him and others.Oh and another thing that really makes my skin crawl is you'll have people say down with the recasters ect and ect and then when they think no one is looking sing a different song on a under a different name thinking you dont know who they are.Well got news for ya we do!


----------



## Bruce Bishop (Jan 17, 1999)

These threads never stay civil for long. I really think it's time to close this one. I'm tired of the arguing, and rarely if ever someone changes their opinion, and then it's someone who 'would' buy a recast publicly deciding they 'will not' buy a recast from now on. 

Unlicensed items are illegal, period. I think that anyone who says differently is blinded by their desire to rationalize their own opinion. 

That being said, I love the things I love, and don't care if they are licensed or not. 

I am sure that recasting does sometimes hurt the original producers of kits, whether totally original concepts or unlicensed items. I have no way of knowing how much harm is actually done, how many producers harmed, what dollar amounts are involved, etc., but I do understand that an original producer who puts their efforts into something they themselves love, will be rightfully upset with someone recasting the result of their own hard work.

All this type of thread does is get people upset and argumentative, and I really wish this type of thread would be banned on the boards. The anger and emotions only grow stronger the more this is talked about.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

wolfman66 said:


> Now Modelman dont take my ranting personal.But when you got guys pumping out recasts by the truck load of original kits that you have in your collection it would upset you aswell.Specially if one of the Producers that you have the up most respect for in this Hobby has caused him to shut down his website because of these theives and the problems that they have cause in the hobby right now for him and others.Oh and another thing that really makes my skin crawl is you'll have people say down with the recasters ect and ect and then when they think no one is looking sing a different song on a under a different name thinking you dont know who they are.Well got news for ya we do!


I didn't realize you were on a rant, nor had any reason to think it was personal to me. I'm interested to know about this stuff and the only way is to ask questions and theorize scenarios. There's nothing personal in what I'm saying, it's all intellectual query as far as I'm concerned.

Heck, I was furious when I found ebayer 'lexfrog' buying Stargazer's models and tagging $100 on top of Ian's price. That was more rotten to me than recasting as the seller didn't even have to go to the trouble of molding! I wrote some furious letters to that seller and ebay itself, but nothing came of it. Ian knew it was being done, but was only upset that he wasn't getting any credit for the images that were lifted or acknowledgment of him as the creator in the sales pitch. 

I'm sure recasters do harm. Just like d'loading music or movies harms the business models of the mega corps. Unlike the megacorps, the lone artisan can't absorb losses. But unlike the artisan, no corporation gets sympathy from me. 

Fact is there will always be a black market for everything that exists. The illegal profits from the legal, good guys succumb to bad guys and cheap knockoffs trump quality. No form or amount of law enforcement can change that. And while capitalism reigns, there will always be someone around to steal someone else's work to give the consumer a lower price point.

The topic of the thread is ethics of recasting. Recasters have no ethics. I don't think the ethics question can be applied to the end user who knowingly or unknowingly buys a recast though. Capitalism is only about the drive to the bottom and everyone and their dog is fair game. May the cheapest product win seems to be the mentality. The only solution would be not to make a product in the first place.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

here's another question i have.

If I own an oop model still on the sprue. I make resin casts and sell those casts at cost, no profit, to any who want one. Does that make me an evil recaster? Let's say it's a current model from a gk'er or big corporation that I recast and sell at cost for no profit? Same answer? If a line is drawn, where is the line drawn? how can casting single parts of a kit be any less offensive than the whole kit?


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Bruce Bishop said:


> I am sure that recasting does sometimes hurt the original producers of kits, whether totally original concepts or unlicensed items. I have no way of knowing how much harm is actually done, how many producers harmed, what dollar amounts are involved, etc.,


That's the thing. It's easy to say Screamin went under due to recasters. But that's like saying the music biz is going under due to downloads. That's false in their case. Yes, album sales have dipped, but there are many other factors involved and in the case of the music ind. they are deliberately demonizing dl's when the fact is their whole underpinnings have been failing for decades. The dl's just split the seams on their business model. Same for hollywood blaming movie dl's for ruining their business model. Of course it has nothing to do with the crap they are producing in the first place, nor that their conceptions are out of whack to begin with. It's not their fault, it's someone else's. And I work in hollywood, so that ain't nothing I'm happy about. That's just the way it is. 

So while recasters likely pushed Screamin (and others) over the edge, it can't be said there were not other internal problems eating away too. Business endeavors fail for very complex reasons. Without a proper and detailed post mortem, the cause may as well have been the boogie man himself.

It seems that, generically speaking, recasters are symptoms of a disease, not the disease itself. And if the disease is catering to a given market at cut throat prices, well, all you wind up with is a lot of slit necks and blood everywhere.


----------



## Bwain no more (May 18, 2005)

Todd; I have known you for quite awhile now, and the thing I like about you is that your posts are generally passionate, heartfelt AND well informed. Your post in this thread is no exception, but I WILL disagree with you on one point; it may not have been a NICE thing to bring Monarch into the discussion, but it WAS fair. And I stand by my opinion . My INFORMED opinion.
Tom


----------



## MonsterModelMan (Dec 20, 2000)

Bwain no more said:


> BizzaroBrian; I am actually too busy to fart right now myself, but I will take the time to post this image that appeared on HobbyTalk over a year ago. It is of test shots from the molds Monarch produced based on two Canadian issue Monster Scenes kits (the other was the Jekyll/Hyde). Box art for these has also appeared, but I do not have it saved on my desktop. Feel free to grab this and post it on your Facebook page or wherever you like, but if memory serves, after it was posted here, it went missing very quickly...I'm not a big fan of Monarch so I don't follow the goings on of the company too closely, but I'm sure there are folks here who can bring you up to speed.
> Tom


I'm not in here to bring Scott or anyone through the mud...this project for MS Dracula could have since been withdrawn too from Monarch...but Tom is correct. There were two kits...Evil Man and Blood Sucker that were posted here as I dl'ed the pics to my computer too!One was MS Dr. J/Hyde and the other was indeed MS Dracula...both Canadian versions.

I haven't heard anything about them in quite awhile so that might be a dead project....
I'm not too worried...he has a few that are legit that are coming soon...it is all about choices at the end of the day....right?


MMM


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

MonsterModelMan said:


> I'm not in here to bring Scott or anyone through the mud...this project for MS Dracula could have since been withdrawn too from Monarch...but Tom is correct. There were two kits...Evil Man and Blood Sucker that were posted here as I dl'ed the pics to my computer too!One was MS Dr. J/Hyde and the other was indeed MS Dracula...both Canadian versions.
> 
> I haven't heard anything about them in quite awhile so that might be a dead project....
> I'm not too worried...he has a few that are legit that are coming soon...it is all about choices at the end of the day....right?
> ...


Bob you mean these?


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

Model Man said:


> here's another question i have.
> 
> If I own an oop model still on the sprue. I make resin casts and sell those casts at cost, no profit, to any who want one. Does that make me an evil recaster? Let's say it's a current model from a gk'er or big corporation that I recast and sell at cost for no profit? Same answer? If a line is drawn, where is the line drawn? how can casting single parts of a kit be any less offensive than the whole kit?


See, that is the thing. There is no hard and fast rules.
What it comes down to is what each individual modeler believes themselves.
I know people who will not buy Polar Lights ktis, because to them they are recasters. Because they reverse engineered some of the Aurora kits.

Others think making copies of old styrene kit parts is a no-no.

It is up to each person to draw their own line in the sand.

I am not into branding people or companies. All I try to do is educate people on some of the issues and let them make their own decisions.

Personally I will not buy recasts of any garage kits, either current or out of production (at least not knowingly. I too have been burned a couple times over the years).
I have no problem with resin copies of styrene kits or parts from the kits.
My reasoning is that styrene kits are produced by the thousands. So a handfull of resin copies are not going to hurt potential sales if the kit is brought back. Especially since a new kit would cost considerably less than a resin version.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

That's why I've always said that the subject of recasting isn't nearly so black and white as some folks want to make out. It's a rather grey area, IMNSHO, because of the very reasons you give. 

It's also a very slippery slope.


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

It's safe to assume that most folks here are against re-casting, including myself, but what happens when someone who is less informed on the subject, say for instance, a Mother in Law, knowing that you enjoy building model kits, gives you one or two, as a birthday, or Christmas present? Do you build them, or throw them away? Just curious! 

Kitz' :wave:


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

They make for good practice/experiments, especially for people who have never worked the material in question before. You won't be so worried about messing them up, right? Or just give them away -goodwill or something. I suppose 'mom' might expect to see a build at some point though...

Suppose in the first place, you had no reason to suspect they were forgeries and they turned out to be the best builds you ever did, you treasured them for years, then discovered they were recasts. Would one smash them for spite at that point? 

If you happened into a bootleg dvd, thinking it was real, of your fave film, discovered it was bootleg long after the fact, would you toss or smash that?

Extreme reactions over something so 'trivial' seems over the top maniacal, imo. Pack a peace pipe and relax is what I say. Getting all worked up after the fact is unhealthy. 

We've established recasters have no ethics or morals and that consumers happen into recasts knowingly and unknowingly for many reasons, largely financial (I bet). 

When counting 'the oldest professions in the world', bootleggers rank in the top 3. There ain't no one gonna drive them out of business. Just steer clear next time, lesson learned.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Is it okay to recast small figures for your own use?

Technically, I think that is also illegal, but to what point can/should the law interfere with one's actions that doesn't involve selling something that has been recast?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, I don't think Auroranut casting replacements for the missing parts of my Aurora Tarzan was gonna drive Aurora out of business, so I'm cool with that.


----------



## ochronosis (Dec 29, 2005)

John P said:


> Well, I don't think Auroranut casting replacements for the missing parts of my Aurora Tarzan was gonna drive Aurora out of business, so I'm cool with that.


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Okay, my turn. After having read all the posts, it seems to me that there three principal questions that are germain to the issue of recasting:

*1. Is it okay to buy a recast of a model kit was produced by a manufacturer that is out of business? *I don't see why not. The underlying issue is whether the recaster is doing harm by selling resin copies of pre-existing model kits. We all appear to be in agreement that those who pirate models that are currently in production are harming the industry in every way.

It can be argued that recasts of models made by a defunct manufacturer might hurt the market for those who sell the remaining original kits. However, it's also true that there are buyers within that market who will pay _any _price for an original issue. For myself, I have a resin recast of The Thing From Another World that I purchased long after Billiken had folded. Judging by what I've seen on eBay and in the vendors rooms at model shows, my action doesn't appear to have hurt the price of the original Billiken vinyl kits in the slightest.

*2. Is it okay to manufacture an unlicensed model kit? *No, that's still intellectual theft. For example, Universal Studios certainly had a right to exact licensing fees for the reissues of the Aurora kits that were based on the classic movie monsters. After all, Revell stood to make a substantial amount of money from the models, which wouldn't have existed had it not been for Universal having gone to the effort and expense of making the films in the first place.

And yet there is merit in the argument that some little Garage Kit manufacturer is not going to hurt, and may even help, a studio's profits by producing some limited run item that was based on a movie vehicle or character. He may help stimulate sales of the kit to which his replacement geegaw will be added. And it's not too far-fetched to suggest that his customers might pick up DVDs of the pertinent movie as a reference with which they can improve the accuracy of their projects (granted, it wouldn't happen in all cases all the time). Universal would be within their rights to chase down every little GK geek who made such an unlicensed item, but surely the game wouldn't be worth the candle.

*3. Is it okay to recast kit parts for your own use? *I don't see why not. Yeah, it would benefit the manufacturers to buy extra kits to get the parts, but I can't believe even they would kick to learn that somebody had cast a part for his own use. Auroranut's casting parts of out of production Aurora kits simply doesn't make him Public Enemy #1 in my book.

Clearly there are degrees of harm that recasters can do. Like drug dealers, the recasters are kept in business by the market. So in the end, the only effective solution to the problem - and indeed, the only one there really _is_ - is going to lay within the conscience of each modeler.

Mark McG.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^I can live with those answers. 

They are reasonable and realistic and staying within the spirit and purposes of the law, IMHO.


----------



## Mitchellmania (Feb 14, 2002)

ochronosis said:


> Hi Guys,
> I know it is probably wrong and people will hate me for this  but, I own a couple recast kits which I bought because the company had long gone out of business and I can't afford the extortionate prices that the kits are now fetching.
> 
> Simon


I agree with you on this _ IF the model is long out of production, I can see purchasing a recast of the kit.


----------



## Mitchellmania (Feb 14, 2002)

Mark McGovern said:


> Okay, my turn. After having read all the posts, it seems to me that there three principal questions that are germain to the issue of recasting:
> 
> *1. Is it okay to buy a recast of a model kit was produced by a manufacturer that is out of business? *I don't see why not. The underlying issue is whether the recaster is doing harm by selling resin copies of pre-existing model kits. We all appear to be in agreement that those who pirate models that are currently in production are harming the industry in every way.
> 
> ...


Mark I totally agree with this- That is why I am buying Styrene kits right now that are licensed. I'm sure I'll get a lot of back talk for speaking the truth. People shouldn't cast stones . Every one has an opinion on this, and I do not care what others think.


----------



## Todd P. (Apr 12, 2007)

Some of you are speaking from your own considered opinions and that's fine. When it comes to recasts, I'm squarely against them unless you're casting a missing part for a kit, and so I disagree with anyone who says it's OK to recast an out-of-production kit. But it's true that there are bigger issues to worry about, certainly in my own life.

But I will stick up for my friends, and I'll remind one person here (you know who you are) about the dangers of throwing stones in glass houses.

I know quite a few GK producers and will take strong exception to anyone calling them thieves.

By the way, even if you think it's OK to recast a long-out-of-production kit from a defunct company, that still means Billiken is NOT fair game because the company is still around. Billiken Shokai may not do American monsters anymore, but I for one would be thrilled if the company ever decided to do them again.


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

John P said:


> Well, I don't think Auroranut casting replacements for the missing parts of my Aurora Tarzan was gonna drive Aurora out of business, so I'm cool with that.


And he does it at his own expense, not for profit, cause he's a good guy just trying to help his fellow modeler's.


----------



## Bruce Bishop (Jan 17, 1999)

As far as Billiken being an existing company, I don't know if it still exists, what they currently produce or if their current product is available here in the U.S. I couldn't find anything about them on Google. 

From what I have read both around the time they first appeared and later on, the kits that got them started were unlicensed B-movie type figures, which are still highly sought after today, but of course at extremely inflated prices over the original sticker price of the kits. I seem to recall (but would not bet on it) that later on, after they became a big name and noticed by the studios, they stopped producing those unlicensed kits and their new offerings were either licensed (I think the Batman movie kits were licensed, and the Predator kit, etc.), or possibly even some original creations. 

I suspect but have no actual knowledge that their old, unlicensed kits would never again be produced by Billiken due to licensing costs, and perhaps agreements made when they 'went legit'. Therefore I am really not sure what position I would have about Billiken recasts of their original, B-movie type kits. 

I would really enjoy seeing a list of all the Billiken kits produced, and if they were originally licensed or not. Every one I have seen in person is really cool (the handfull I managed to get for myself) and I would like to dream about the ones that got away! 

If anyone has better knowledge of Billiken please post it. I really love their old kits but know little about the company itself. I could go back through my old model magazines and mail-order newsletters that I have kept, but since I have all the Billiken kits I will probably ever own I don't really feel like a big research project. But comments from someone with a better memory or easier access to the information would be welcome!

If anyone does post more Billiken information, thanks in advance!


----------



## Todd P. (Apr 12, 2007)

Bruce, I linked to Billiken's website above. The url:

http://www.billiken-shokai.co.jp/

Direct to the current model kits:

http://www.billiken-shokai.co.jp/billiken_files/toy/toy_realmodel/toy_index_flame.html

Billiken does not sell kits directly, so far as I know, and its website is difficult to navigate if you don't read Japanese. However, you can find the kits from a variety of sources, such as yesasia.com. I purchased two brand-new Billiken Godzilla kits there within the last five years.

I couldn't say what the deal was with licensing the first Billiken kits, but I do know the Universal Monsters were licensed through the studio and I'm reasonably certain the Batman kits were as well.

No matter what, as long as Billiken exists, I will argue that only Billiken has a right to produce its kits, including the ones that haven't been made in 20 years.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Todd P. said:


> ...No matter what, as long as Billiken exists, I will argue that only Billiken has a right to produce its kits, including the ones that haven't been made in 20 years.


Ya got me there, Todd - I thought Billiken had gone under years ago. This news puts any recasts of their kits past or present in the Piracy category, as far as I'm concerned. Will I destroy my Thing from Another World buildup? No, because I bought it in good faith; however, I will certainly stay away from any other recasts of Billiken kits in the future.

I saw that they do cite copyright information for Toho and some other Japanese production companies on their web site. They are evidently paying licensing fees now, whatever their past practices might have been. If I were able to communicate in Japanese I'd let them know that there's still a demand for their old kits.

Or better still, add The Thing to the next wish list for Moebius, Monarch, or Round 2 to see...

Mark McG.


----------



## sprayray (May 13, 2009)

Hey guys Billiken still does excist ! my buddy was stationed in Japan and he and his wife would go to the store and see if any new kits are being produced and now they are only staying strictly with japanese hero kits , in the likes of ultraman , ultraman monster, kamen rider, astroboy etc... i asked him if they are ever going to produce amercian monster characters again and they told him not likey anytime soon , their shop is a little hole in the wall (he sent me some pics i have to dig them up once i do i will post them up .


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

Interesting thread, and it brings to mind another issue...what about unlicensed aftermarket parts for licensed kits?

Does one take the position that they're worthless to a modeler without owning the licensed kit and there-by do no harm, or should they also be considered taboo because they're still profiting (at the licensor's expense) on an intellectual property that doesn't belong to them?


----------



## Todd P. (Apr 12, 2007)

I love replacement parts. And given that I have no problem with limited-production unlicensed kits, I also have no problem with unlicensed add-ons.

I won't presume to speak for anybody, but it has been my impression that at least some plastic-kit producers also like replacement parts, and have even taken small steps to facilitate their production. Heck, it's a win-win situation for them because, as you say, you have to get the kit for the replacement to be usable.

In my own collection you'll find a bunch of Moebius Dr. Jekyll as Mr. Hyde kits, and no two will be built the same. One will be stock from the box. One will use a box-art replacement head and base add-on with the shelves behind the doctor. One will use a Barrymore Hyde replacement head. One will be the Invisible Man.

Hmmm ... ya know, I don't know if ANY of those replacement parts would technically have required licensing. Maybe the box-art head, but I don't think so.


----------



## Todd P. (Apr 12, 2007)

Mark McGovern said:


> Will I destroy my Thing from Another World buildup? No, because I bought it in good faith; however, I will certainly stay away from any other recasts of Billiken kits in the future.


Wouldn't ask you to destroy your work. And yeah, a styrene version of the Thing would be nice.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

Todd P. said:


> I love replacement parts. And given that I have no problem with limited-production unlicensed kits, I also have no problem with unlicensed add-ons.
> 
> I won't presume to speak for anybody, but it has been my impression that at least some plastic-kit producers also like replacement parts, and have even taken small steps to facilitate their production. Heck, it's a win-win situation for them because, as you say, you have to get the kit for the replacement to be usable.
> 
> ...


Well, if we're talking about recasts making future kits a less than viable endeavour for the producers, wouldn't the next logical extension of that reasoning be that these unlicensed aftermarket supplements could make licensing these properties at *all* a less attractive proposition for the license holder?

Case in point, the example you cite (the box-art head for Jeckyll/Hyde)... if licensing isn't paid to the studio/artist/estate of the actor (if it bore a resemblance to the actor), isn't it feasible that these entities might reject further licensing (which would bar Moebius from producing the very kit you need to use that aftermarket head)?

You might argue that if these accessories are generating more sales of the base kit you need in order to use them, that should appease the license holder because they're profiting by those increased sales. 

But the fact is, they're *still* not seeing a dime of profit on those unlicensed parts regardless of sales on the base kit. Limited production or not, there *is *something to be said for the feeling that you're being screwed by someone profiting on *your *work/intellectual property. 

There are always to two sides to a coin, no?


----------



## hedorah59 (Nov 24, 2008)

flyingfrets said:


> Case in point, the example you cite (the box-art head for Jeckyll/Hyde)... if licensing isn't paid to the studio/artist/estate of the actor (if it bore a resemblance to the actor), isn't it feasible that these entities might reject further licensing (which would bar Moebius from producing the very kit you need to use that aftermarket head)?


I don't see that happening. The license holder makes a lot of money by selling a license to a styrene kit producer - It seems silly that they would turn down that money just because someone made a handful of unlicensed replacement heads...


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

hedorah59 said:


> I don't see that happening. The license holder makes a lot of money by selling a license to a styrene kit producer - It seems silly that they would turn down that money just because someone made a handful of unlicensed replacement heads...


Fair point, but model kits aren't the only licensing avenue open to whoever owns a particular property. With respect to many of the type licenses we're talking about, the toy market is just as lucrative.

Disney will license just about anything they hold the rights to, but their licensing fees are notoriusly expensive. For a major toy manufacturer who will sell in huge volume, it's not as big an issue because they're likely to recoup their costs. Pirates of The Carribean sold well as toys, but we're a far smaller demographic as model builders. 

Pulling or refusing a lcense to a model manufacturer is likely to represent a fairly small loss to the owner of the property by comparison.

Would it, or could it play out that way? Who knows? But taking or using something that doesn't belong to you is still wrong regardless of whether it's recasting someone else's work or using someone's intellectual property without consent or compensation.

Even if just for the mental exercise, it's a point worth considering...


----------



## hedorah59 (Nov 24, 2008)

True - I used to think that the bigger the corporation, the more likely they would overlook some small garage kit maker. Per your example though, Disney is notorious for pursuing C&Ds to protect their properties.



flyingfrets said:


> But taking or using something that doesn't belong to you is still wrong regardless of whether it's recasting someone else's work or using someone's intellectual property without consent or compensation.


I agree with that. 

The difference I see is that a garage kit producer, though taking a character design without permission, runs with that design and comes up with something never before seen for that character (Unless they are copying an already produced kit or statue of course). Even if they are translating a 2-D image to 3-D there is a lot of work and creativity that goes into that translation. They put out money for the sculpt, materials, advertising, etc. and take a chance that they will make that money back.

A recaster adds nothing to the mix, just taking money from the kit producers, legitimate or not. 

There are people who want to argue that "Hey, a kit producer is stealing so it is perfectly alright to steal from them". Well, by stealing from the garage kit producers they are stealing from my friends and neighbors and that isn't alright with me.


----------



## Todd P. (Apr 12, 2007)

If replacement parts made licensors more reluctant, it wouldn't affect only model kits. By and large, I think the only parts that would usually be subject to licensing would be the heads, and replacement heads are commonplace for a variety of figures, particularly dolls put out by companies such as Sideshow and Dragon.



flyingfrets said:


> Case in point, the example you cite (the box-art head for Jeckyll/Hyde)... if licensing isn't paid to the studio/artist/estate of the actor (if it bore a resemblance to the actor), isn't it feasible that these entities might reject further licensing (which would bar Moebius from producing the very kit you need to use that aftermarket head)?


As far as the specific box-art likeness goes, I don't believe there has _ever_ been a fee paid to Fredric March or his estate, the man the art most resembles. And I mean all the way back to the 1960s when Aurora first made the kit. Dr. Jekyll as Mr. Hyde was originally billed as a Universal Studios monster, specifically, I believe, Boris Karloff's character from _Abbott and Costello meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde_.


----------



## Bruce Bishop (Jan 17, 1999)

Thanks for the Billiken links!  They show a lot of cool figures on their site, as well as a lot of just outright strange things!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Kitzillastein58 said:


> And he does it at his own expense, not for profit, cause he's a good guy just trying to help his fellow modeler's.


 To use McG's drug dealer analogy, Auroranut is just a guy who grows his own weed in a flower pot and shares it with his friends.


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

John P said:


> To use McG's drug dealer analogy, Auroranut is just a guy who grows his own weed in a flower pot and shares it with his friends.


Precisely!


----------



## jackshield (May 20, 2008)

i think this is a baited thread, seen it before.
started by someone who just joined, trying to validate the recasting community and perhaps persuade some potential customers.
obviously the original poster, member since OCT 2009, hmmmm.....
sound more like a wolf in sheeps clothing trying to get someone to baaaa along with him.
im sure this person is associated with recasters, trying to do some public relations work with the GK community.


----------



## ochronosis (Dec 29, 2005)

Sounds like this thread is just about to get very interesting :devil:

Simon


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Time for the folks in the front row to throw the plastic drop-cloth over their heads.


----------



## ModelKitBuilder (Jul 17, 2009)

Recasting and copyright infringement comes down to the individual person and what they believe is right and wrong, even if there are laws to protect the original copyright holders. 

There will always be the people that will ride on the coat tails of others to make a quick buck.

It all depends on what you, as a person thinks is right and wrong.

A recaster and copyright infringer might get away with it for a while, but, eventually, both the original copyright holder will get wind of it and send out their C&D's, a right they have.

If you don't stop, you will be sued, plain and simple. Take into consideration the guy who was selling all the Batman original series resin kits. He didn't heed the warning of Warner Bros., and now look at where he is today.

Just do what YOU know and think is right. :thumbsup:


----------



## jackshield (May 20, 2008)

Todd P. said:


> I love replacement parts. And given that I have no problem with limited-production unlicensed kits, I also have no problem with unlicensed add-ons.
> 
> I won't presume to speak for anybody, but it has been my impression that at least some plastic-kit producers also like replacement parts, and have even taken small steps to facilitate their production. Heck, it's a win-win situation for them because, as you say, you have to get the kit for the replacement to be usable.
> 
> ...


i think i am in the same mindset as todd and mark on replacement/add-on parts.
if a guy sculpts a more accurate head, based on intellectual property, for an existing kit, is he hurting anyone?
i say certainly not, in fact, he is helping the copyright owner and kit porducer in sales.
i myself have been working on a project, that, even if i do kit and sell, will require the individual to purchase the original kit, as it would be an "add-on".
would i be hurting anyone, even though it is unlicensed? surely no one sees it as infringement?


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

jackshield said:


> i think i am in the same mindset as todd and mark on replacement/add-on parts.
> if a guy sculpts a more accurate head, based on intellectual property, for an existing kit, is he hurting anyone?
> i say certainly not, in fact, he is helping the copyright owner and kit porducer in sales.
> i myself have been working on a project, that, even if i do kit and sell, will require the individual to purchase the original kit, as it would be an "add-on".
> would i be hurting anyone, even though it is unlicensed? surely no one sees it as infringement?


If the manufacturer of the existing kit saw enough potential sales to warrant investing in a license to produce it, how would that legally or morally absolve you of the responsibility of doing the same for an "add-on" part or kit? 

Wouldn't you be profiting on the property owned by the license holder? 

I do see that as an infringement. And apparently (depending on how much attention they pay to this sort of thing) so do some of the license holders because I know for a fact that C&Ds have been issued to some aftermarket producers.

I think MKB summed it up pretty well. Ultimately, each of us has to do what we believe is right.


----------



## TAY666 (Jan 8, 2000)

Kitzillastein58 said:


> It's safe to assume that most folks here are against re-casting, including myself, but what happens when someone who is less informed on the subject, say for instance, a Mother in Law, knowing that you enjoy building model kits, gives you one or two, as a birthday, or Christmas present? Do you build them, or throw them away? Just curious!
> 
> Kitz' :wave:



Personally, I see nothing wrong with building the kits and proudly displaying them.
The damage (if any) has already been done. The recasters got their money.
I know people who would automatically throw the kit in the trash. And if that helps them sleep at night, then more power to them.

I will freely admit that I have a couple recasts in my collection.
Both were originally vinyl kits and were recast in resin. At the time I purchased them, I had no clue. I was later educated on their true nature. One was purchased at Wonderfest, the other on ebay.
I still plan on building both of them some day. And I will proudly display them on my shelves.
I won't ever sell them though. I won't pass them on to someone else. When the time comes that I don't want them anymore, they will go in the trash.
For me, passing on a known recast to someone else would be nother short of hypocritical.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

flyingfrets said:


> If the manufacturer of the existing kit saw enough potential sales to warrant investing in a license to produce it, how would that legally or morally absolve you of the responsibility of doing the same for an "add-on" part or kit? ...I do see that as an infringement.
> 
> I think MKB summed it up pretty well. Ultimately, each of us has to do what we believe is right.


FF, this is where I think the issue goes gray. The manufacturers of a lot of these aftermarket heads, etc., for licensed model kits are such small potatoes they're just not worth going after. Yes, they're wrong to produce these items, but in real terms how much harm are they actually doing? It's the pirates who reproduce _entire models_ that are strangling the legitimate producers.

Ultimately, as you pointed out, MKB said it best.

John P. and kitz - don't get me mixed up in your wholly illegal and degenerate activities! :dude:

Mark McG.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

Mark McGovern said:


> FF, this is where I think the issue goes gray. The manufacturers of a lot of these aftermarket heads, etc., for licensed model kits are such small potatoes they're just not worth going after. Yes, they're wrong to produce these items, but in real terms how much harm are they actually doing? It's the pirates who reproduce _entire models_ that are strangling the legitimate producers.
> 
> Ultimately, as you pointed out, MKB said it best.
> 
> ...


In very broad, general terms, I tend to agree with you. At least to the extent that the recasters are the worst offenders.

But I have to say that I have tremendous respect for guys like Henry (TSDS) who not only produce some top notch aftermarket items, but also make sure that their ducks are in a row with the respective license holders.

Could they fly under the radar? Probably. But the fact that they *don't* displays a real mark of integrity and class.


----------



## Kitzillastein58 (Jan 27, 2009)

Mark McGovern said:


> John P. and kitz - don't get me mixed up in your wholly illegal and degenerate activities! :dude:
> 
> Mark McG.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

flyingfrets said:


> ...But the fact that they *don't* displays a real mark of integrity and class.


No argument there, FF.

Mark McG.


----------



## wolfman66 (Feb 18, 2006)

Kitzillastein58 said:


> And he does it at his own expense, not for profit, cause he's a good guy just trying to help his fellow modeler's.


I agree with Kitzilla on what he mentioned about Chris here and see nothing wrong with what he does for fellow Aurora Collectors.:thumbsup::dude:


----------



## jackshield (May 20, 2008)

wolfman66 said:


> I agree with Kitzilla on what he mentioned about Chris here and see nothing wrong with what he does for fellow Aurora Collectors.:thumbsup::dude:


plus, chris was never selling any of those parts, merely supplying them to fellow modelers to complete te auroras.


----------



## jackshield (May 20, 2008)

at the risk of making myself subject to retribution/discipline:

from scanning through some post, it is obvious bizarrobrian is pro-recast.
i am suspicious he/she is part of the syndicate of recasters trying to promote their cause.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

While I've heard this accusation before, I've seen no proof of such. Even then, if he's not violating TOS and/or actively working as a recaster, Hank would have to be the one to make a decision on any action to take. 

In the mean time, bizarrobrian hasn't violated TOS that I've seen. He's free to express his opinions just like everyone else here. We don't always have to agree on everything, just so long as we all respect the right of the other member to have an opinion.

Thanks.


----------



## Todd P. (Apr 12, 2007)

From what very little I know of him through his various Facebook presences and three modeling forums, "biz" doesn't seem to be affiliated with the crew of usual North American suspects. He does seem to be pro-recast, but I don't get the impression that he's a recaster himself.

All thirdhand information from someone who doesn't know or agree with him on this issue.


----------



## jackshield (May 20, 2008)

The mere initiation of this thread was meant to incite, in his own words.
as it was pointed out in first response, it is A DEAD HORSE.

razor pointed out where it was going to lead.

big difference in expressing an opinion and stirring the pot.

i am relative new to the hobby, just a few years under my belt.

i also have two recast, not knowledgable of the situation when i bought them.

a ripped clothes tomb raider, and a vinyl gowran. deduced the gowran as recast once i obtained one in a geo box.

wont happen again, ever, make very sure items are legit before i purchase now.

the difference of opinion on recast and unlicensed has recently became a war, which i am sure most of you are aware.

the gk's struck out at the recasters using vero, and the recaster's pushed the cd's through the licesne-or's.

the recaster have been working very hard to validate themselves by discrediting others.

i, for one, am sick of it.


----------



## ModelKitBuilder (Jul 17, 2009)

jackshield said:


> The mere initiation of this thread was meant to incite, in his own words.
> as it was pointed out in first response, it is A DEAD HORSE.
> 
> razor pointed out where it was going to lead.
> ...


This is for no one in particular....

No matter what you do, or what you like, there is *ALWAYS* a dark and gritty underbelly of whatever it may be.

It is what and how you decide to deal with it that counts.

Now that you know and are educated about it, you now know what is right and wrong, and what to stay away from....

....now, can we get back to modeling? :thumbsup: ....

.... and it is a dead horse. Like a dog chasing it's tail. :tongue:


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

Let`s just close this thread because it`s just going to cause hard feelings which was never my intent.I think I was trying to find out what peoples thoughts were on unlicensed kits.I guess what brought it on was the onslaught of Alien & Predator kits out there.


----------



## Just Plain Al (Sep 7, 1999)

Isn't it about time?

:beatdeadhorse::beatdeadhorse::beatdeadhorse:


----------



## ShadOAB (Apr 29, 2007)

bizzarobrian said:


> Let`s just close this thread because it`s just going to cause hard feelings which was never my intent.I think I was trying to find out what peoples thoughts were on unlicensed kits.I guess what brought it on was the onslaught of Alien & Predator kits out there.


I think jackshield's got you pegged pretty good. I've gone from light, mixed feelings all the way to hard--regarding you & your ethics. Using other's/licensed/copyrighted graphics, 3-D objects,TV shows, movies, music, art, logos, TMs, writing, ideas without an agreement from the property OWNER...for profit--is stealing.


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

Todd P. said:


> I'm not ever going to apologize for calling Scott McKillop a friend or for cheering on Monarch. I'm also not going to say it hasn't been a really long time between kits or tell people they don't have a right to be frustrated.
> 
> I'm not a Monarch representative. Very little that I say about Monarch should be taken as "official" information. Scott's a friend, he has occasionally told me things or given me photos. When this is the case, I say so.
> 
> ...


You are correct.I do not work for Monarch.Just a big fan.You are right it is not fair to drag Scott into this.This group was my idea but I did tell him that I wanted to do this.This group was totally my idea.I just thought it was the right thing to do after all this is his lively hood.I thought it was fair of me to tell him first.We do talk online from time to time & I do love the quality I have seen.Some of his upcoming releases are worth the wait.The Sinbad looks amazing.Better then alot of vinyl & resin kits I`ve seen.:thumbsup:


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

jackshield said:


> at the risk of making myself subject to retribution/discipline:
> 
> from scanning through some post, it is obvious bizarrobrian is pro-recast.
> i am suspicious he/she is part of the syndicate of recasters trying to promote their cause.


Where in my opening thread do I promote recasting? No where.I posed a question about the ethics of recasts as compared to unlicensed kits.I was simply trying to get opinions.Both are done without consent.I see a grey area there & I was just curious about how others felt.Mostly about unlicensed kits.People like to twist things.Why I don`t know.
Just end this thread because it`s straying away from the point.I personally have no qualms about unlicensed kits.Just wanting to know how others felt.I in no way was trying to attack the rules of the forum.:freak:


----------



## bizzarobrian (Oct 4, 2009)

bizzarobrian said:


> Where in my opening thread do I promote recasting? No where.I posed a question about the ethics of recasts as compared to unlicensed kits.I was simply trying to get opinions.Both are done without consent.I see a grey area there & I was just curious about how others felt.Mostly about unlicensed kits.People like to twist things.Why I don`t know.
> Just end this thread because it`s straying away from the point.I personally have no qualms about unlicensed kits.Just wanting to know how others felt.I in no way was trying to attack the rules of the forum.:freak:


Besides even if I was a recaster I would be broke.I couldn`t make a mold if my life depended on it.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

jackshield said:


> The mere initiation of this thread was meant to incite, in his own words.
> as it was pointed out in first response, it is A DEAD HORSE.
> 
> razor pointed out where it was going to lead.
> ...





ShadOAB said:


> I think jackshield's got you pegged pretty good. I've gone from light, mixed feelings all the way to hard--regarding you & your ethics. Using other's/licensed/copyrighted graphics, 3-D objects,TV shows, movies, music, art, logos, TMs, writing, ideas without an agreement from the property OWNER...for profit--is stealing.


There's a big difference between asking for a discussion on a subject to actually recasting. I have no idea who bizzarobrian really is, nor do I immediately care beyond what's happening here in this thread. I'm not seeing bizarro stating he's a recaster, nor have I seen an indication where he's trying to get folks to start buying/supporting recasters. 

What I _am_ seeing is a bunch of folks who have already tried, convicted and are now trying to execute a man who's not said he's a recaster nor that he's necessarily gung-ho about recasting. He never said he was setting out to incite bupkiss, but did know that by starting the thread he was likely "opening a can of worms", to use his own words. _Big_ difference between stating he wanted to get folks riled up and wishing to see a discussion on the subject. People at some other forums would just about kill to have the opportunity to discuss the subject in a civil fashion - yet a few of you are intent on taking the subject off the civilized path. Ain't happenin', so get over it. 

Just because you don't like the discussion at hand doesn't mean you have to participate in it. Take some responsibility and DON'T LOOK IN THE THREAD if you know it'll likely get you spooled up. I don't much care for politics and at those forums to which I frequent where politics are allowed, I tend to stay way far away from anything that even LOOKS political in nature. Same thing if you don't like a TV Show - _don't turn the channel to that show_. 

Now, get this, folks - the attacks *stop*. The insinuation that bizarrobrian is a recaster and only started the thread to start some sort of fight *STOP*. Re-read the TOS if you have any doubts about what constitutes an attack. 

And for the record, so that I don't get accused of condoning recasting - I'm against straight-on recasting, tho I honestly feel that the issue of recasting isn't nearly as black & white an issues as some folks like to make it out to be. It's a pretty gray area, considering a number of accurizing or kitbashing parts for various kits are originally a kit part, just heavily modified. I also don't see where doing like Auroronaut is doing in recasting parts and sending them to folks for what I'm assuming is likely his costs (or at least shipping) isn't necessarily a big deal. However, if you condemn a guy for casting kit, you're pretty well obligated to condemning Auroronaut for doing the same. Thus, to me, it's a gray area of discussion. 

Not saying that recasting entire kits is acceptable, just that it's not nearly so cut & dried as some folks want to make it out to be. I mean, let's also honestly consider the issue of unlicensed kits while we're throwing stones.... 

So, let's get back to the discussion and keep it civil. I'll let bizarrobrian make the final decision on if he wants the thread locked or not. Most of you have kept it on an even keel, even giving opinions well opposite of what bizarrobrian initially stated. So, we can indeed have an adult discussion on a hot topic.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

OK, just saw that while I was typing my reply, bizarrobrian again called for the thread to be closed. Thus, granting his wish.


----------

