The consequences of copied dolls

Well, if you're happy with owning recasts and cheap knock-offs of the real thing - good for you. Me, I couldn't and wouldn't be happy with a doll anymore if I knew it was a recast. In my book, knowingly buying a recast (i.e. you know it's a recast before you buy it and don't care about it) is morally wrong - period. The same way as, for me, it's morally wrong to buy fake Addidas shoes or a fake Rolex or fake Ray Bans. And you can feel free to write a whole novel about how I'm being stupid to shell out so much money for stuff I can get cheaper and how I'm wrong about insisting buying fake stuff is morally wrong but it won't change my point of view. And I'm very, very glad recast dolls are banned here on DoA cos if they weren't, I'd have to leave this forum immediately.

 

Copying styles is a very different issue then copying a complete piece of art. The former is influence and considered a learning method; writers influence eachother, artists influence eachother, musicians, and so on. But that's not the issue here. This statement is all over the place and I can't pinpoint exactly where your main point is. In the case of reproductions of old, or classic works, it's very obvious that a repainting of Mona Lisa is not the original. Artists who make replications of pieces like these are not usually taken seriously as artists in their own right, regardless of legal copyright issues. If someone directly copies or repaints a piece by an existing contemporary artist without permission, it is illegal, and the copier will be persecuted. Again, I'm not sure what your point is in this paragraph. The fact that people "prefer" something is not a relevent point in this argument, as the issue pertains to the original artist and the repainter, not the buyers.

The fact whether BJDs are toys or not should not matter in this debate. On the subject of knockoffs as a whole, it is insubstantial what exactly a knockoff is of, but that it indeed has infringed upon intellectual property rights. The fact that there exists knockoffs of items does not legitimize the moral implications of creating knockoffs. That is basically akin to saying because murder exists everywhere, murder is ok, or that because robbery exists in the world, you should e perfectly fine if someone robs your house. More likely is the fact that not all manufacturers have the wealth or resources to go after these reproducers; this holds to BJD companies particularly made up of a small team. IN cases such as big BJD companies as Volks, they do indeed care and do bring recasters to court. Also, your claim that "little attention is paid" to knockoffs is unsupported. Please refer to the Mattel v. Bratz litigation a few years ago, where a million dollar lawsuit was filed where Mattel felt that Bratz stole intellectual property from Barbies. Bratz and Barbies, as you are aware are both dolls that can be bought for much less than BJDs.

Again I don't see the point in this statement. You are admitting that theft of design is theft, but you qualify it by saying it has always existed, so that we should be tolerant of this behavior. I redirect you to the fact that murder has always existed long before recasting and reproduction of intellectual property has, but does not make it in anyway tolerable. You support your argument with a fallacious premise.

Also, the one your local store supplies probably does not stamp a Jimmy Choo label on those shoes, and therefore is vaguely dodging the full legal consequences. Most people who buy designer shoes want that label, and so most of the money goes into the brand name, not the design of the shoes themselves. You buy your local shoes because you like the design but care less for the label. BJD owners who want VOLKS dolls are paying because its a VOLKS doll, a brand that is associated with quality and reliability. Those who knowingly buy knockoffs forgo that brand along with the assurance and buy purely because they want what they think looks nice. Like you, they may be content, but for the people who thought they were buying actual Jimmy Choos or VOLKS, will not be.

The blame is generally pointed at the recasters who make the copy and then sell them as originals. Recasters are the root of the problem. Consumers who willingly buy recasts add fuel and perpetuate the problem. The solution can be grassroots, by stopping recasters, or plugging the fuel by stopping consumers. Since people like you who justify their choices by appealing to the actions of the collective mass (i.e. everyone does it so I do too) make it extremely difficult to persuade otherwise, the best recourse is to stop recasters. This however, is also difficult given international laws. However, just because there is no easy solution does not make the problem not a problem. Also, please cite where you are getting your 65% statistic.

These paragraphs don't really make sense and doesn't have a stake in this argument as just because you do something does not validate it for the collective populace. So I won't address this.

Where are you getting your statistics. 90%? Proof please.
Your argument strikes me as a very scary thought. "I can't sit there and condemn people for doing something that I see done all the time". You are basically perpetuating the passive response to world problems. You are the bystander that wrong things to go on despite knowing its wrong, because either everyone else has been doing it, or that it has always happened. If American people just sat by and said "I can't condemn slaveowners for doing something the rest of the country is doing", then there would be no civil war, no emancipation, no abolition. Women would also not be given the right to vote, because there would have been no impetus for change. These are just a few examples of what would happen if everyone took your philosophy to heart. Change happened because people got angry. They got angry with the way things they "see done all the time". Perhaps dolls and recasts specifically don't hold the same weight as the more pressing moral issues, but the holistic field of intellectual property rights is a very big concern, not only for us, but also for the world (see UN disposition on measures for increasing laws for intellectual property).

If you ever get scammed by a recaster who is passing off their dolls as a legit, I will also "stand neutral" and give you no sympathy because your inaction and passive stance in part contributed to it.
Not saying you will, and I hope sincerely that it never happens to you or anyone, but that is a fear alot of people on this thread have expressed, a fear that you did not consider in your response.

 

I think all the quoting made me exceed char limit, but as an addition to what I wrote above:
I think ideally the move should be to persuade people not to buy copied dolls and to boycott the recasters. I have already mentioned that that that's unlikely. However,

Persuasion is not the same as harassment. People did not start the problem, only exacerbated it. The real criminals are the recasters themselves. While we can try to reason with consumers, we shouldn't take it upon ourselves to heckle the buyers of recasts (knowingly or unknowingly). They already did what they thought was a viable option for them, and still that does not make them criminals (an accomplice maybe, but hardly when it comes to business). At the end of the day, regular consumers of recasts are still normal, friendly (for the most part) people. A few may have some verbal inconsistencies in their justification for why, but it's also not our place to ask them why, only make sure all the resources are there to have them make an informed decision and hope for the best. It is not the anti-recaster's duty to "bring the buyer" to justice, but to explain the consequences COMPANIES would suffer as a result of their action, the legality of the recaster, and the moral implications. If they know all that already, then I don't think it is fair to press further. At the end of the day, it's not a witchhunt, but about being a caring and compassionate member of the community who wishes for the hobby to live on.

On the grounds of recasters on the other hand, they are knowingly engaging in a crime condemned by most of the world. In this respect, we should be angry, and we should protest. I personally also extend this to people who are helping (i.e. collectively paying) recasters get new dolls they want to recast.

To be more on topic, the retail value of a doll can either go up or down depending on the company.
For example, if the company see their sales going down due to recasts, they might hike up the price to cover their losses. Or they would drop the price to be more competitive, but in order to maintain that price, would have to proportionally decrease production costs which means drops in quality, aesthetics, fewer sculptors, fewer dolls.

Due to the expanding size of the doll market but the relatively stagnant population of people in this hobby (growing slowly but at the same time, people leave the hobby) as well as the market for second hand dolls, smaller companies would definately find it too difficult to continue if copies were introduced and may exit the market. In a sense, a doll yellowing can be seen as a good thing for companies, as it gives the people incentive to buy the same doll in a few years, or just buy more dolls constantly (see bluefairy replacements of yellowed resin policy). They might also turn to new materials, or 3D printing ways of manufacturing to make it more difficult for a recaster to copy.

 

For the record, again, I DON'T OWN A RECAST. The closest thing I've got to one is two knock off My Scene dolls and I never said I was likely to buy one either. In fact I said just the opposite. I think recasts are too a risky a thing to buy. What I am saying and this is the last time I am going to say it is that I don't feel I can judge other people for doing it given I have bought things that are basically knock offs, like for instance the bag of store brand Chek Mix sitting on the desk beside me which is identical in every way to the brand name Chek Mix I normally eat, but that I actually could not afford this week. Please don't put words in my mouth. Most of what you said below I didn't say. I didn't accuse you of any of that, or tell you that you're stupid for buying legit dolls. I am frankly just not that rude, and that's also my point. I didn't say I approve of recasts, now did I? What I did say was that I won't call out people who do. I won't wage that war. It's not my place to go there. I'm not perfect. It's not like I have never touched a knock off anything in my life. In truth you can hardly avoid it unless you want to make all your own clothes, your own shoes and never touch a generic food product in your whole life. Enough said.

 

Thank you very much for the info, it's certainly shed a lot of light on how re-casts make it on the market. Very interesting, I had no idea about the shrunken size.

 

I would like to mention that the examples of classic paintings, like Monet, Renoir, Van Gogh and other known and lesser known artists CAN be used as public domain. It is recognized and allowed to be used under certain creative licensing. So the argument about classic paintings is a little invalid. It depends on how many years has passed, versus the usage and intent.

IF IT IS NOT YOURS YOU MUST GAIN LICENSE OR PERMISSION TO USE IT. PERIOD. With exception to creative commons and free usage agreements where the image or art can be used without permission or credit.

Everyone has a copyright. The moment you create something of your own, and scan it, photograph it and/or save it, It is yours. Something that is not originally created by you, is NOT yours. Anything NOT yours that is in your work, better be royalty free or have a license to be used. Those are the hard facts, public domain is not an excuse anymore. "I found it on google" is not an excuse anymore.

Something you have physically made, is yours. Someone making something that looks like yours, in your style, is inspired and should be credited as such. Otherwise you can get into trouble for making an unauthorized COPY.

This goes for ALL creative aspects. Including recasts. Barbie was sued because the maker was accused of COPYING. It was too similar to the original, that is WHY the Barbie person got into trouble!!!

RECASTERS COPY WITHOUT CONSENT. They don't pay for the licensing to create a product. They don't ask for permission. That is stealing and it is unlawful.

The reason why there are "other Barbies" or "Knock offs of other brand names" is because they are SIGNIFICANTLY different to a certain percent of the REAL design. Some of these are legitimate knockoffs with their own brand. Which is their own patent and copyrighted design. Some Brand names have GENERIC or STORE BRAND products that are the same or similar. Which is OK. Others are not, and yes, they are stealing!

If you want to throw around the issue, read about copyrights, copyright law, patents and branding. I highly doubt many of the people arguing about this re-cast issue REALLY understand how copyright LAW works. (Or understanding the concept at least, because of all the legalities involved. Or just plain don't care because it's too much to read.)

I personally do not give a damn if you ACCIDENTALLY bought a re-cast. Not your fault. However, if you willingly bought a re-cast, and you support buying them...well you should keep you mouth shut, as I will find out where you got it from wherever you have posted about it. I will turn in the the people doing the recasting with a formal complaint and file cease and desist letters or send the proper forms to the companies that are being hurt by recasters. I am a very pro-active artist, and I will take legal action. That is why this is a serious issue to me, and why I take this issue seriously.

Recasting is one of many forms of stealing. I am not sorry if I scared people, or just plain sounded like a bitch. I study about this issue a great deal as I have to be very aware in my field of work about copyright infringement and copyright law!

Also, not doing something is just as bad! Doing something because "it's all around us" is bad! So if your friend or family member stole something, it's okay to do it too? Would you stand there and let them steal, knowing full well that they are taking from someone else and potentially causing a lot of harm to that other person?

Would you?

No wonder we have so many problems in the world today!

If you are truly concerned, and would like to learn more about what I am talking about, here is a resource for you. This website has links to many other websites and legal places to visit.

Patent Law:http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/index.html
Copyright:http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/index.html
Trademark:http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/index.html
Internet:http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/index.html

www.bitlaw.com: http://www.bitlaw.com/index.html

 

amen! Totally agree with this and with a lot of things other people have said regarding the real facts of copyright and what's going on with recasts etc. I see this issue every day when I read journals on Deviantart and try my best to help people when their artwork gets stolen. There has been several times where someone has found a website selling artwork of artists I know and I ALWAYS go out of my way to note them with a link to the website and inform them that their artwork is being stolen if I recognize the art. It's just so totally rude to steal and sell other people's intellectual property especially because most of the time the original artists cant even pay their bills. The saying "starving artist" doesnt exist for no reason. It's completely 100% true. Most artists struggle enough in life with trying to get their work out there and make money off of it. It's just plain wrong to then go and steal their work behind their back just to rip them off some more because you think you have the right to take it for your own gain.

 

You're welcome, I wanted to shed light on some of the arguments presented.

Store Brand and Generics, versus Brand Name and Trade Marks. It's really complicated, and a lot of stuff to read. I only know because I am in the graphics and arts field, and we are constantly reminded of the laws and we have to cite every bit of info or piece of work that does not belong to us. We have to be very careful with the things we do and create.

I'll be more than happy to explain these things, but I think that one website resource is pretty good, and I encourage others to try to take a little time to get to know these things so everyone can understand this particular issue. As most of the points brought forth in this discussion, were incorrect.

I really do hope my input has clarified things and brought insight.

 

Thanks to DOA forum so I can research here first before I buy BJD. I've studied graphic design and I knew it's a pain when you know someone steals your design/ideas. The first time I know about BJD, google & ebay led me to recast/bootleg site. There's even a recast friendly forum (sure people here know about that other forum). It's tempting when you know they had pretty LE Soom/ Iplehouse for a good price but my heart says NO. I will support the artist living if I can, if I can't support, then I'll stop buying BJD and happy with current collections. It's better than owning recast and some time in the future, my favorite companies are shutting down of bankruptcy or stop making new molds.

I admit I'm tempted to those recast/bootleg dolls, but end up having legit Iple doll in my avatar (I know bad home lighting, bad cellphone camera without filter, bad first faceup, sorry for being newbie, I'm still learning through this forum & youtube) and very pleased with Iple quality, while I saw here someone got recast (by accident, lack of research) and there's chipping and breaking along the body. I won't send my money with that quality even it's just $50.

If people are happy with their recast doll, then I can't say anything, and won't start a fight if I know their dolls are recast. At least I know what made me happy and seeing my favorite companies still producing new molds and new better bodies. I wish I can get PeaksWoods doll this year. They're not very popular doll among recasters, thanks God.

 

... Chex Mix? How did we get here?....

Anyway, generic products are not the same as knockoffs. Generics don't infringe on the creator's rights, because the patent has run out on the original product, leaving the product itself open for competitive sales. But not the brand. This is why you can buy store-brand multi-symptom cough syrup instead of NyQuil and save five bucks, or your pharmacist can give you generic lorazepam instead of brand-name Ativan and save you forty bucks.

However, you cannot sell your own brand multi-symptom cough syrup and call it NyQuil, and you can't use the NyQuil name or label....and your pharmacist cannot slip you generic lorazepam in a bottle that says 'Ativan' on the label. This is essentially what recasters are doing. They cast a knockoff piece of crap and sell it to you as a "Soom MD Super Cheap!!1!!!"

So, like, don't get your karmic panties in a twist over Safeway brand seasoned snack mix.

Crux of issue #1!

(Crux #2 being that enormous bloated suppuratingly vile sense-of-entitlement that's so endemic amongst recasters and their supporters.)

 

This is begging to be said: rich. people's. problems.

For the record, I am anti-recast, and I only buy dolls direct from Volks or not at all due to the increasing acceptance of recasts. But, let's clarify something. Trying to UNDERSTAND the reasons for recasts is very different from ACCEPTING recasts.

So, before "attacking" someone for trying to understand or look at the issue in a new way, perhaps discussing the issues based on reality (not only on written legal mumbo jumbo) could help open our eyes as to why and how to better prevent the existence of recasts in our community.

Yes, recasts are illegal. I've reported YouTube videos promoting recasts for promoting illegal goods and reported such users to their government authorities. But, that's not going to explain how recasts impact us as a doll collecting community.

So, how about this kind of approach regarding the 'consequences' of recasts...

How recasts have influenced me:
1) I now will never buy a secondary market doll. Will recasts kill the secondary market?
2) I'm now aware of how I want to enjoy my hobby so that everything has 'integrity'.
3) This issue has helped shape my own views of my clothes and shoes and bags and household items, etc. Instead of buying a lot of cheap things I prefer to buy one really great thing (on sale) and use it until it is worn out. I don't want to have a 'cheaper is better' outlook or a 'more is better' perspective. I want what I need versus what society tells me I should have - an excess of material wealth.

How I feel recasts will influence the community:
1) It will slowly erode the profitability of the secondary market because people will become more distrustful.
2) Because people are more distrustful, I feel it will divide the community not into 'recast' or 'anti-recast' groups, but rather, 'extreme' versus 'moderate' individuals in each group.
3) Recasts will open the hobby to areas where a doll even at $100 is extremely expensive because people there only make $100 a month (or something to that effect). Whether good or bad, I cannot say, but I think recasts will eventually be known as 'dolls for poor people' introducing even more pronounced divisions along economic lines within the BJD community.

I'd like to believe recasts are a 'fad', but as I look around at the community I am afraid that is not the case. I do think societal conditioning from a young age that teaches people the 'money at any cost' mentality is the culprit. I don't think it's necessarily greed - all humans are greedy to an extent - but I think it's the acceptance of recasts as 'okay' or 'normal' in developed nations that's the larger issue. Only time will tell if, like has happened in North America, the 'mom and pop' BJD shops will be closed when consumers favor 'recast' dolls which could evolve to become 'mass-produced' based on the economics of supply and demand. Although I don't see that happening in the short-term it is most certainly a possibility in the longer term if more and more people accept 'cheap' over 'quality' when buying dolls.

 

Good god, Raiisu, I bow to your excellence in tackling that pile of detritus point by point. I couldn't do it without resorting to language entirely unsuitable for the ears of the younger members of this forum.

...you can't call out someone for owning a recast because you bought generic Chex Mix.

Do you have any idea how ludicrous that sounds? Seriously, if you can't see the difference between "legitimately made and legally sold generic/off-brand/store brand product" and "illegitimately recast duplication of someone else's copyrighted artwork" then...jesus, man, I got nothing. I seriously cannot even comprehend that, it's that out there. Cannot brain. Just cannot.

At any rate, you can keep your "peacemaker" tendencies to yourself. I've got no desire and no intention of making peace with petty art thieves with giant entitlement complexes, and anyone who so much as suggests that I should is going to find out what I'm like when I'm really angry. (You don't want to see me when I'm angry.) A person who knowingly buys a recast is not a "doll person" in my book. They're a thief. Plain and simple. By declaring that it is "not your place to go there" you are making yourself complicit in their actions. It is the place of all dedicated doll owners to "go there", because if we won't stand up for the companies and dolls that we love, who will?

...I can't believe someone would think buying generic Chex Mix was enough to make it impossible for them to call out someone on buying a recast. Seriously? I can't even.

And am I the only one who seriously wishes DoA had something like LJ's Notes feature?

 

omg lol! Totally love this Tez! I couldnt help but smile when I read this XD

 

Oh, I can't say I wasn't warned about this. Woof! (MK fans her face....) The heat and rhetoric in this thread is amazing. All I have to say is I really don't want to fight in this war. I'd just rather remain neutral and not fight with anybody and I'm being attacked on all sides? I've met fundamentalist evangelists with less ire and less fervor. So basically what you're saying is if I don't join the fray I am the enemy? ROTFLOL Well, I guess I am going right down to dolly hell then because I'm not about to pick fights with people over this issue just to be sitting with the righteous crowd. I don't want to fight. I've said my peace. I've chosen the path of peace over judgement. You don't like it I am sorry. But that's how I feel and I am not going to sit there and gleefully go after people who might own recast dolls. I'm not the dolly police, and I just don't feel I have a right to sit there and act like I am.

 

This is why the argument that some people just can't afford the real deal and so have to buy recasts, is such a pet peeve of mine. I'm not rich. My income is very much below minimum wage and the past year I've lived of my savings alone, because I lost my job. Twice.
If someone should come by and said (s)he'd like my work, but LOL couldn't afford it so bought a copy, I'd be furious. Not just because ever since I graduated I can't even afford these dolls, unless I painstakenly put aside every penny that I've got. It's because if someone buys a recast, all the money goes to a person who didn't put a second of work into creating that doll. As a result, I won't get food on the table.

This isn't about the buyer's right to get the doll - or any other artwork - (s)he deserves, it's about the right of the artist to live.

 

At the risk of being flamed I'm going to ask one last question because it occurred to me this morning and I wanted to hear what you had to say about this. Probably this has been discussed to death elsewhere but humor me and answer me anyhow. Does theft of copyright not also include the unlicensed usage image of a person's face? If the idea of copying a whole doll bothers you then what about the minime dolls? Clearly they are allowed. They're on topic here. I mean think about it. Is anyone paying these celebrities for the use of their images to make BJD's with their faces?

Most non-BJD doll companies pay a pretty penny to license the usage of a famous person's image to make a doll, and yet, in the BJD world from what I have seen it's pretty common to see celebrity BJD's. and correct me if I am wrong but I don't think most of these people are being recompensed for this usage. This kind of thing is part of the reason I have such a hard time condemning people who make recast dolls. I mean it's "okay" for a BJD doll company to make a bunch of minime heads of say David Bowie and not pay him for the use of his likeness, but it's not okay for someone to reproduce that company's dolls?

The Dexter doll from Iplehouse is I think anyone would admit a pretty darned close representation of Micheal Hall from Dexter. The Aliyah (sp?) doll looks very much like the late star of Queen of the Damned and clearly those dolls are very much inspired by these people, if not 100% identical. I just figure likely that's so they can say the doll was inspired by if they ever get sued, lol, but that's okay? Me. I am always surprised when I see this and I don't see the BJD doll company getting sued. If Mattel or say Franklin Mint did this they'd be roasted in court, no?

So what makes that okay? For Iple to make a doll that's thisclose to looking like Micheal Hall or Brad Pitt or Aliyah and not for someone to copy them? Honest question. Because to me that's just as questionable as recasts. Tonner, he has to pay through the nose when he goes to make a doll that actually resembles an actor, and from what I understand the whole licensing thing is a really difficult thing, but BJD companies don't? Yeah, they're in China or Korea or wherever and copyrights are different there, blah, blah, but if they weren't they'd likely be getting sued blind, right? Well, so are most of the recasters from what I've read online. They're using copyright law overseas to circumvent the very same problem, aren't they?

Stuff like this it's why I don't particularly want to get into a huge fight with people over this issue. I mean if as a community BJD people are going to allow what basically amounts to fan dolls to be sold then is it right to jump all over the people who buy recasts? I'm honestly kind of uncomfortable going there when I see this. I mean how can I just call these people out when there are unlicensed heads of famous people on here all the time?

 

It's an artistic license that most people don't necessarily need to obtain. We all know the celebrities, and it is not infringing on copyright law, and it is not harming them. If it was infringing, then everything we ever liked could not be used, ever. There are many images that may not have any type of licensing. Most of the time those are free for public use. As long as you credit the source. It's a good rule of thumb that if you don't know the source, can't find info on the image, don't use it.

It is still a different issue compared to recasting. Making a fan character doll, in this case a minimee head, is usually okay. Fan art is created by artists, BUT they aren't CLAIMING the people or characters as THEIRS. So it's okay to have a likeness. There is a fine line here, but usually fan art is okay, and look alikes are okay. Changing the name of a doll that looks like Brad Pitt is ok. It's just a likeness, which is not infringing.

Infringing is usually referred to as intellectual property damage. Celebrities and famous people (or well known) people sort of waive their rights to certain copyrights. Not all, but some. Being that they are famous, many people will create fan art, fan writing, fan dolls. Creative and Artistic licenses protect us and protect them. It is hard to be famous, if no one sees your face.

This is also a complicated issue, because there are so many things involved. It is not a simple case of "yes or no".

I would really read through the links that I posted, as I really feel it would help you understand this issue a lot better. I feel you are confused, and that is not a bad thing. Many people have the same misconception, and don't even realize these things exist.

 

I remember that when Denny first started doing the DiM Minimee heads there was a limit as to how exact he would sculpt them; I want to say it was 70% accurate for photographs and 80% accurate for things like anime characters and the like. (Things drawn by the commissioners themselves he'd go for as accurate as possible, naturally.) So there's that, too. It's not a 100% likeness, which fudges the line even more.

I think there's some confusion, but I also think there's a lot of moralizing going on -- and not the right kind, either. A lot of people prefer to remain uneducated rather than be proven wrong.

Oh god, this just got hilarious. Seriously? You do know how many people have trotted out that same excuse to turn a blind eye to things they really shouldn't have been turning a blind eye to, right? That's the oldest one in the book. "Peace" and "inaction/deliberate ignorance" are not the same thing, and nobody's saying you have to go after recasters with pitchforks and torches. What I am saying is that when it comes to actual honest-to-god art theft there is no middle ground. You're either against it or complicit in it, and complicity doesn't have to involve actually purchasing the doll or making it yourself. Saying "oh, I'm neutral, look at me, I'm peaceful, I won't get involved, I can't point fingers" is just as complicit as the actual culprits, because what you're really saying is that you don't care and as long as it doesn't affect you directly then people can do whatever they want and to hell with anyone that gets hurt (and I don't care if that's not what you think you said, because that is actually what your words parse out to mean). That? Is not a cool attitude to have, and no amount of superiority-driven moralizing will make it so. I'm not an artist myself, but two of my best friends are artists by trade. The thought of one of them getting screwed over by some selfish egotistical brat who doesn't want to pay for their work makes me sick. Like Silk said, this is about an artist's right to make a living. How can you be "neutral" about that?

Taking a stand against art theft and recasters can be as simple as making sure you keep your eyes open, and if you see someone/something that's suspicious, you bring it to someone's attention. It can mean firmly saying "no, this shit ain't cool" to a person if you hear them endorsing it/talking about buying a known recast. It can mean actively opting to not deal with those who endorse recasting. This isn't screaming evangelism we're talking about, it's paying attention. Not hard, and not intrusive.

But hey. You're more interested in trying to preach to all of us about how peaceful you are, and how you can't point fingers because you buy generic stuff, and how we're all a bunch of frothing maniacs and you're clearly better than we are because you're peaceful. So I don't particularly hold a lot of hope that any of this is going to penetrate.

Go read the links XpHoBiaX posted. Learn a few things about the reality behind IP theft vs. generic vs. public domain vs. creative license. Education is the best weapon against ignorance, after all.

Done now.

 

Tez, really love your posts. Can save myself the trouble of writing up an essay myself because you've said it all alread, and so well, too.

 

Agreed.

Some things about copyright and IP are very complicated... That recast dolls are a Bad Thing for the legitimate producers and the collecting community isn't among them.