Recasting a company's doll in unavailable resin

I sort of have mixed feelings on this. I mean, if someone buys a DVD or CD and makes a copy of it to have a different format, and they never sell the original copy, the same sort of logic could be applied to dolls.

However, I guess what's different is that dolls are more art than just a disk converted to something like a file to watch on an iPod. If a company makes a certain mold and it's recasted in whatever resin the person likes, what if it turns out not looking so great? What if the company doesn't want people to see their sculpt and think poorly about their dolls because of the resin they copy was made in is not so good. This in turn could result in loss of sales.

Even if someone does a good job with it, it's not made by the company, and if it's shown where more people will see it (even as pictures), it could tarnish their name if it shows something that the company does not want.

I understand that sometimes people have dream dolls that have extremely specific specifications, but at the same time, it's just a doll, and why some people get so worked up over having exactly what they want to the point where a copy of a doll is needed just seems silly and going overboard.

 

i think it's fine; but honestly, I would never put anything on my boy or girl's face cause I... Personally can't bear the thought of losing their face up >_< Also cause I think my boy wouldn't like anything on his face =X [kinda disrespectful to him, in my personal opinion]

 

I don't think there would be anything inherently wrong in owning it. But if a friend of yours were to say 'Hey, that's really awesome', and you sold him one, or made him another one, that's where I'd draw the line.

...Not to mention that you'd save so much money and effort by just dying it. @_@

 

As twigling pointed out, recasting takes a certain amount of sculpting skill and a considerable amount of money to afford the materials. Considering the great expense going into creating a copy, it would be cheaper and easier all round if the person were to just dye the parts to match.

The temptation to recoup the costs that went into producing a recast by selling recast parts would be too great, could anyone say for sure they really, truly would never sell those parts on or make money off selling recasts regularly? Is there anyone so confident that they would be prepared to contact the companies concerned and try to secure the copyright holder's permission? I doubt it.

And then there is the question for the BJD community; do we really want the market flooded with bootleg parts, whether they're available in a rainbow of colours or not?

 

Well, here's an actual situation. A person I know of paid Domuya for 2 flexi Fins when they had their half price promotion. There were long delays - a couple of months then one of the Fins arrived. When she queried what had happened to the other one, Domuya denied she had ordered 2. The order was no longer available, she had deleted the confirmed one from her email and now Fin was back to full price and Domuya claimed that was all she had ordered. She had ordered a NS and a WS one and I can't remember which one turned up. Now I knew she had ordered both because she was quite excited and told me at the time. She had used paypal balance and the time had elapsed and even though she asked paypal, they would do nothing hence she was out 1 doll. In that instance is she entitled to copy the doll to get the extra one she had paid for? PS. Domuya never did anything to reimburse her for the extra doll and just ignored the entire situation. It appears the only thing they did was to delete her order off their system so she couldn't prove she had ordered two.

 

This is a very sad situation, but the person still isn't entitled to copy anything. It might seem like justice, but that sort of reasoning wouldn't hold up in a courtroom. Domuya are the copyright holders and anyone copying their work would be infringing on those rights...and if the buyer can't prove they made the order, companies can and clearly will do things like this. I guess there's a lesson for everyone in this too; don't delete order confirmation emails and Paypal transaction emails, they're important documents that prove what you ordered and what you're entitled to

That's interesting, thanks for sharing. Perhaps all is not lost for people determined to go down the recasting route, as long as they keep their intentions all above board and go through the right channels.

 

Blushing to match would be the first thing that would pop into my mind since I do that with heads from time to time anyway.

I think they could, honestly. Some might feel temptation, but others really might see it as a line they won't cross. People do have things that they won't do, after all, and there are plenty of people that really aren't interested in selling, making money, recouping costs etc. They go in knowing this hobby eats money and are ok with it. It's going to completely depend on the individual, but you shouldn't assume that everyone is so easily swayed by the prospect of money.

I wouldn't want to see that myself--I want to know where things are coming from and that can add a good bit of confusion. However, it goes back to the above. Most of the situations being posted have to do with making one cast for personal use, and somehow other people have immediately jumped to the conclusion that casting would automatically turn into mass producing. Personally, I think the cost, time, skill, and risk to the original parts are enough to discourage the vast majority.

 

It's not necessarily that it leads to mass production; it costs a lot to get the raw materials together and it takes serious skill to make a high-grade copy. That in itself will limit how many people are capable of making bootlegs of a similar quality to company produced works. However, I am cynical enough (and live in a country where our Members of Parliament have swindled taxpayers' money to pay for everything from moat-cleaners to lightbulbs) to know that the power of money can be a big incentive to turning your OOAK NS resin Euclase talon legs into 2OAK or more. We already know that there are companies in China willing and eager to rip off Soom MD's and there are a market of willing and eager people wanting to buy from them. The bootleg industry is huge, not just for BJDs, there are bootleggers making anything and everything from bags to CDs to shoes.

The other issue I don't understand is that people keep tossing the subject of recasting around as if it were as cheap and easy as pushing a doll part into Playdoh, pouring plaster in... and Bob's your uncle... you have a recast part that will seamlessly mimic the original part. Casting resin isn't the same as casting plaster models of Power Rangers or My Little Ponies. I had both these sets when I was little They were a lot of fun, but not particularly difficult to use or requiring detailed sculpting skills.

Personally, I think recasting is rightly discouraged. This hobby can be a minefield for newcomers and even old hands buying dolls. The majority of us buy dolls sight unseen for a lot of money and it is heartbreaking to hear of people who have paid a lot of money for bootleg dolls that aren't worth the pitted, additive-filled resin they're made of.

 

Playing devil's advocate in this post - just to be clear, I'm against recasting anything without the original artist's permission, under any circumstances.

Twigling didn't say that, because that makes no sense at all. Moulding requires experience in moulding (for placing seams and vents, etc). Casting requires experience in casting (for pigmenting without disrupting the resin, and minimising bubbles, etc). Neither requires sculpting skill at all.

I can buy 1kg of silicone for ~$80, and 1kg of resin for ~$60. If I were willing to buy in larger quantities, my materials would be even cheaper.

Twigling's quote for a 60cm doll also doesn't seem particularly high to me, when you put it in context - how much do OOAK 60cm dolls go for? Is $1000-$2000 really that unreasonable for one? Even with someone who has no experience - if they start with small parts, and learn from them, they still might be able to get their OOAK for $3000 or so... I've seen limited dolls go that high. If people in this hobby are willing to pay that much for a OOAK doll from a company, why is it so difficult to believe that they might be willing to pay a similar price to cast one?

Not necessarily easier - I personally find it much easier to mix a batch of coloured resin, rather than dyeing a piece of already-cast resin. Both casting and dyeing can result in uneven colour, but my personal skill set means it's much easier for me to manage coloured resin than to get a perfect dye job. The majority of people might find it easier to dye, but not everyone.

I absolutely can. I already own a supply of silicone and resin. I've already outlaid the costs for those materials for my own work. If I got permission from a company to recast a piece in unique resin, I would consider the price of my materials to be the price I'd be paying for the unique piece. I have my own work to cast and sell for money - I wouldn't have any desire to 'recoup' anything by selling illicit recasts.

I'm also not sure why my 'I'd consider the price of my materials the cost of the finished piece' couldn't apply to other people. As I outlined above, the costs in silicone/resin actually line up fairly decently with the costs a OOAK piece would cost from a company. There's no need to recoup any costs.

If I ever have the desire to make a unique recast, I wouldn't be afraid to contact the company. The worst they can do is say 'no', and I'd have no problems respecting their wishes. But they might say yes, and then I'd get to have fun creating a unique and special piece for myself.

The original post specified that the recasts won't be resold. You're arguing against a straw man. No one is trying to say that reselling recasts is acceptable. This debate is about recasting for personal use.

Copying a doll would be hard work. But that's not a good argument against people recasting. The best argument against recasting doll parts is that it's illegal, and disrespectful to the original artists.

 

I keep seeing people say something along a similar lines. How isn't it the same?Music is an art. Technically, by buying the CD, ripping it to your computer, and putting it on your Ipod,you ARE taking money out of the artists pocket (as there are the downloadable albums that were made originally for the purpose of it being easier and "suckering" people into buying albums twice as a convience thing)

In making a second copy for your car, it's totally illegal. As nearly all media says that copying even for personal use only is illegal~


I don't see a problem with either of those two things. But I also don't see the problem in recasting a doll in an unavailable colour for personal use only. As many people have said,you pay the money for the materials, you'll most likely damage the original, And in the end you'd have your dream doll. The company has their money, you have your one dream doll, happy all around!

As the OP said(and it's the OPs box we really have to stay in for this type of argument), the doll will not be sold. I understand how some people would get overtaken by the potential profit and sell, but not in the OPs hypothetical,so I don't think that can apply in this conversation.

 

No, see, if you paid for something like a CD, and you no longer have a CD player, but can legally rip a CD to have mp3's for personal use, then fine, it is legal. However, if these mp3's were being burned to CD's that are then sold, or broadcast to a wide audience, then that is technically illegal. One of my friends is a DJ and he could get in a shitload of trouble if he is caught broadcasting music that was downloaded illegally.

The reason why it is generally considered okay to have multiple copies of a song that was originally purchased is for that very reason.

Personally, what I think it comes down to is what the company who is distributing the product wishes. If a record label is okay with people ripping mp3's from CD's so that they can use them on new technology, fine. If a doll company is okay with others re-casting their dolls for non-profit, fine as well. However, if a company is not okay with this practice, then obviously they should be respected in this way if someone really cared about art.

 

I have no issues with copying a doll, as long as its for your personal collection, never to be sold. I plan to recast one for my own super-modded Puki purposes. I will, however, only be recasting a few limb segments... at least thats the plan...

I guess I figure that if im going to go to the extremes that I am with my Puki modding, a recast isnt out of the question at all. (One is a blood red demon, the next is a third-eyed sky blue elven girl, and then im making a ninja and a cyborg)

But yeah, its your doll. If you want to recast it and make a super spiffy doll that only you have and no one else, go for it. Dont let anyone talk you out of your dreams, thats just silly

 

I was just thinking a similar thought! These are mass produced resin dolls, meant for customization. Therefor, since she BOUGHT the one she has, if she wants to modify it in any possible way, her only limitation should be physics and material science. This is of course, AS LONG AS SHE NEVER SELLS IT.

Also, I feel like almost every. single. person. on this thread has ignored the fact that she'd be recasting it in CLEAR BLUE RESIN. That isnt something you can paint, or dye, and achieve. Its not even the same type of material.

So again, I see absolutely no issues with your plans. Good luck, email me pics when you're done!

Im leaving this alone now...

Justin

 

It is actually still illegal. Copying media in any way, even for personal use, is illegal, at least by US and Canadian laws. No, you probably will never hear of someone getting in deep doo doo for it, and yeah record labels let it go in a big way until they see it getting "shared", but that doesn't mean it's legal. >_> Second hand sale is technically illegal in most cases, yet is often encouraged as well! Lots of other every day activities are illegal too, but they keep on going (I wont go any further on that, since most of the ones I know about are not pg 13 kinda laws XD)


But the other thing that I feel is being ignored here, with the artistically unethical notes.
These dolls we love so much are seriously at the end of the day a cash cow for most companies and all their partakers. I understand we like to see the companies in a better light than that. But if the recasted doll isn't undermining their sales, they probably wouldn't give a flying hoot about it. Why? because the customer is enjoying their product and likely to buy again (or give good word of mouth which is better than any advertising) and it's not to create something that the company is already offering.


Again, it's in the same line of so many other things we don't even think about, and see as acceptable. People who enjoy their knock off purses. People who sew fer style dresses and sell them on the boards. People who cast other unavailable parts for their dolls (and even sell those!). Copying a painting or anything else that's not public domain yet in order to learn. If you see a problem with recasting for personal use, do you see a problem with these things? Because I can't see supporting these other money making things, and not supporting something that's someones personal enjoyment of their 200++$ doll.



And I will admit,it does fall in a bit of an ethical grey area at the end of the day. But, with most "grey areas" of eithics and morals, it's up to the person doing to decide where they stand. If it's recasting, destroing the original mold, and keeping the recast all for themselves, then I will never, ever see an issue with that. In fact, Go for it! More sculpts need to be in whacky colours!

But, you keep both? That's where it gets grey for me.

And you start producing to sell? that's where it gets wrong for me.

 

I still have to say no, it's probably wrong. It's like me saying how I love a sketch of Cutter from Elfquest, but I'd rather have a picture of him as a red-head with black jeans on and a Ramones t-shirt, so I go and trace this drawing, photoshop it, and color it my way. I'm still taking someone else's work and using it in a way they probably did not intend it to be to be-- as a replica for my idea.

If there's a doll I want in another color, I'd dye it. Recasting is a no-no in my books, no matter the reason.

 

This isn't 100% on topic, but I think it's still quite interesting. It's a National Geographic article about 'China's Instant Cities'. Most Chinese bootlegs would be coming out of cities like these. Even the production lines and machines themselves are bootlegged - plans stolen from overseas and sold off illegally to multiple investors.

I have to admit, if the local minimum wage for my area was forty cents an hour, I might be tempted to part with my artistic scruples.

 

I guess I'd have to think of it this way: If I made a painting and someone wanted it with different colours, I'd prefer they ask my permission before copying it, or commission me to do it for them.

If someone bought the original, copied it and destroyed it, I would be FURIOUS!!!

 

I'm not clear on where I stand on this topic, but I just thought of something interesting:

In the originally described situation, the owner is ruining the doll he/she bought to make one in different resin. It seems that it could almost be seen as recreating the doll, or customizing it. Dying a doll blue replaces a normal skin doll with a blue doll, so can this be seen as replacing a normal resin doll with a blue resin doll? These two situations still seem completely different, but from a mathy standpoint, they're both 1 = 1... :P