Mold Makers Are Not Recasters!

[Topgun[TK]]

I've been making molds for fellow 501st members who have been 3D printing their greeblies. Its more efficient with resin and a gang mold. I just have the member send me a clean 3D print, I make the mold, and send them the mold and original. 

 

I got called a recaster today and verbally threatened by someone who obviously doesn't know what the term means. Smooth-on will actually refer you to one of us if you don't feel like making molds.   

 

If i'm making you a mold, then giving it to you. I'm not recasting your work!

Edited February 24, 2016 by Topgun

[TK4205]

That's not recasting.

 

The term recasting is a misnomer. It does not refer to 'casting" at all, but is a term used in education. For instance, when someone calls it the "lie-berry", proper recasting would be to say "you mean 'library, don't you?", instead of repeating the miss-pronounced word.

 

I consider 'recasting" here in the same manner. To copy or do the same thing as someone else. For instance; If a member comes up with latex hand guards, it would be recasting for a different member to do the same, even if they were to produce their own bucks from scratch, in essence, stealing someone's idea. 

As much as I work with latex myself, I would not produce the same thing as another member and I would consider it recasting, or stealing, if I did.

[Daetrin[Admin]]

It's kinda like using "level" in D&D. For our purposes, we use recasting to mean the direct copying of someone's work. Since most of the time it is done without permission, recasting unqualified means recasting without permission, and we explicitly denote when recasting is done with permission of the person who made the item.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

I personally don't think anyone has the right to offer permission, when they do not own the brand.

 

we have been living in the grey area of property rights, and I personally don't believe that we in the 501st have the right to

produce and sell items with legal permission.

 

LFL / Disney seems to consider the 501st in a very special way, in effect considering it advertising in trade for our breech of Intellectual Property rights.  I don't believe that we have the right to offer permission to recast, when we do not own the brand.

Recasting is the action of making a replica without the brand owner's license.

 

As an example, MG never had ownership of the ROTJ modified TK.  So CAP and CAP-W do not have copyright protections, or any rights as they never received permission from the owner of the IP.

 

We're lucky, that's all.

 

Making a 3d model of a part, from a sculpt, that replicates an item replicating a licensed product, would require a license from the property owner.  Many companies have paid money for said license, and that's the only way to make it legal.  Again, we're lucky up to this point.

 

Usually recasting is only considered when a person makes a replica of a non licensed product, and sells the derived work as a product for sale.  When expanded into legal concepts, we're all recasting, when we sell products.

Edited March 20, 2016 by TK bondservnt

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

I gotta say... topgun, you're not a recaster. 

they have bad motives in mind.

  perhaps that is why we are so special.

 

We're Lucky

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

It's kinda like using "level" in D&D. For our purposes, we use recasting to mean the direct copying of someone's work. Since most of the time it is done without permission, recasting unqualified means recasting without permission, and we explicitly denote when recasting is done with permission of the person who made the item.

The Legion has been getting away with murder.  We are indeed lucky.

[Sly11[Admin]]

So lucky that perhaps we should not talk so much about it, in case one day our toys get taken away.

I truly hope that never happens .

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[R2trooper]

Ok, weird question a bit on topic, a bit off. So, if I went out, and spent the roughly $5,000 for a MG-34 and made mold of it, with the intent to make them into DLT-19's and sell them, would that be considered recasting?

Now if someone took my parts and used them to make their own molds to copy and sell parts that is definitely the intent of the word recasting.

 

If I hand made/sculpted a version of the "DLT-19" based off the MG-34 and made molds for my parts to then sell it, is that recasting?  

 

I have an E-11 that someone told me they "made" and it was "their" design and superior and more accurate to any other out there. After looking at a Doopy, all the numbers were identical... So yeah, a total recast of a Doopy kit. 

[sylverbard[TK]]

It's kinda like using "level" in D&D. For our purposes, we use recasting to mean the direct copying of someone's work. Since most of the time it is done without permission, recasting unqualified means recasting without permission, and we explicitly denote when recasting is done with permission of the person who made the item.

Please...look for the oots comic about the word level in d&d.

 

Fond memories.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

making a copy of a firearm, with a star wars concept behind it probably would sell here on the forums, especially if you had little things like a working

feed tray, cover, bolt and tripod.

 

we're lucky.

 

[ozz[501st]]

Ok, weird question a bit on topic, a bit off. So, if I went out, and spent the roughly $5,000 for a MG-34 and made mold of it, with the intent to make them into DLT-19's and sell them, would that be considered recasting?

Now if someone took my parts and used them to make their own molds to copy and sell parts that is definitely the intent of the word recasting.

 

If I hand made/sculpted a version of the "DLT-19" based off the MG-34 and made molds for my parts to then sell it, is that recasting?

 

I have an E-11 that someone told me they "made" and it was "their" design and superior and more accurate to any other out there. After looking at a Doopy, all the numbers were identical... So yeah, a total recast of a Doopy kit.

 

Ok. Here's my outlook on this subject:

 

If you're taking something like a gun (real, not plastic) and make a solid copy of it, it's just that. A copy.

 

There are companies that make copies of guns for training purposes all the time. None of them are considered a recaster. They do not retain any of the rights to that weapon.

But if someone were to engineer a working copy of all the parts of said weapon, and sold it as a working weapon, it would be considered a "fake", duplicate... Etc. (Basically a recast to us) China does it all the time.

 

Now, if you had made a solid resin copy of said gun (that does not function), and someone else made a copy of your replica, THAT is considered recasting, and is not owned by Disney, or any Lucas franchise. On weapons, they only own the name. Not the likeness, since They are basically copies of existing weapons, with a few alterations. They would only own the rights to the alterations, if that. Really, all "direct lineage" armor is recast because it is a direct copy of the screen used armor.

 

To repeat saying that "we are lucky", is kind of... "Redundant".

Albin paved the way for us to be able to continue to do things like this. He arranged it so we have an agreement with Lucas arts to be able to make armor and use the Star Wars name, with the promise that we don't make a profit from his work. (now Disney's work) That is the agreement. An agreement, armor makers push the limits of. (charging twice the cost) For Lucas arts, and for the legion.

We are considered a charity origination. We give millions of dollars to charities so we are able to continue to use the Star Wars brand for entertainment purposes. That is what keeps us alive.

 

If we were to cease the charity aspect, and just sell armor for profit, then, yes. We would be lucky. Lucky that in the sence we don't recieve a cease and desist order, with a side of being sued for copy right infringement.

 

So, to say we are "lucky"... Eh...

We are Lucky in the sence that we can do what we enjoy doing.

Prop and armor makers are more lucky than the group is. If the 501st folded tomorrow, you would still be able to wear your armor without fear of being sued. The makers, on the other hand, would need to go underground, and would be taking all the risk. It's not illegal to buy, wear, or sell things you own. But it is illegal to reproduce a brand with the intent to make a profit on something you don't own.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

The point is that we Do Not have permission from LFL to sell products.  No armor, No blasters.

 

We do it, yet permission is not there.

Comparing Training weapons, China, and other ways of making items has nothing to do with what the 501 does.

 

In short.  We are lucky.  (yeah I repeated it.)

[TK4205]

The point is that we Do Not have permission from LFL to sell products.  No armor, No blasters.

 

We do it, yet permission is not there.

Comparing Training weapons, China, and other ways of making items has nothing to do with what the 501 does.

 

In short.  We are lucky.  (yeah I repeated it.)

Vern, you're right man. The best thing I think, is for you to just turn yourself in to the authorities.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

Get in line? 

[TK8114[TK]]

I've always felt the best way to explain it away is we use the term recasting as our community sees it as you would use plagiarism as in passing off another's work as your own.

[TK bondservnt[501st]]

usually a recaster does not claim the work to be 'their own' since if that was the case then they could not be a recaster.  A recaster is any person who does not own the rights to the product, and produces it anyway.

[Buliwif]

Hi there. I'm new here but I've been fabricating for quite some now and I have some input on this.

 

I see quite a bit of confusion around here on what exactly counts as "recasting." In fact I've seen a couple examples here on this very thread. Recasting is, as has already been pointed out, a copying of someone else's work for the purpose of passing it off as your own. I can give you a great example of this in the "real" world: 

That sure ain't no He-Man riding on no Battle Cat... Back in the early 80's, during the Masters Of The Universe craze, just about every third world country managed to make copies of the figures, mold them, recast them, and sell them as knock off toys. This was a practice that ran rampant throughout the 80' and 90's. This is the definition of re-casting. If you actually, physically make molds of something someone else crafted and sell it off as your own hard work, then you are a re-caster. 

 

Making molds of someone's 3-D printed items so they can reproduce them in a sturdier resin is something else entirely, and is actually a pretty stand up thing to do for someone who isn't able to do so themselves.

 

Also the statement about coming out with latex hand guards after someone else did as being recasting, I have to disagree with that also, especially considering the handguards in the movie were made of latex. Even if the movie hand guards weren't latex it still wouldn't be re-casting unless that person made molds off the original's work. Using techniques and materials of those that have come before us to improve our work is progress. We take what we've learned and we improve upon it. That's how the world moves forward.

 

What it comes down to is ethics. If someone is literally stealing your work and claiming it as their own. That's exactly what it comes down to. Methods of production, materials used... all that is relative, unless it's some tightly guarded company secret that someone could only find out about by breaking into your workshop and stealing your files... Then that's pretty dirty business right there... 

 

Anyway... that's my two cents...