Oh NO!

[Johan]

... Well it was to be expected - "Western Samourai" they call it...

Someone PLEASE do that Tokugawa Ieyasu figure QUICK !!!!

http://www.andrea-miniatures.com/ENG/moreinfo/SG-F87.jpg

[Patrick Kirk]

Johan,
Gotta agree...sometimes things are better left undone...
Let me guess, Andrea?

Hope all is well

Patrick

[Johan]

Andrea's latest it is, indeed, Patrick. Well, I guess it's up to them what they want to do, but I would have thought a historically accurate samourai of the 19th century (about 1869) would be more interesting - I saw photo's of some and they look like interesting subject.

[Patrick Kirk]

Johan,
I gotta agree...a decked out samurai, to me, would be much more appealing...but hey, I guess they know their customer base better than us!
Hope all is well...

Patrick

[quang]

Johan,

There's no such thing as an 'historically accurate' samurai in that period . Let me explain.

In the Meiji era (19th century), Japan was in peace for several centuries. As peace and stability endured, the merchant class (bourgeoisie) became richer and more powerful whereas the warrior class (samurai) became obsolete and lost all its former prestige (and wealth).

It's in reaction to the modernization of the country (and their own sorry condition) that the members of the warrior class dressed themselves in 'samurai' attire. These are the guys we see in contemporary photographs. The issue is that after centuries of non-use, the old skills have disappeared with the last of the armourers and sword-makers. Add to that the drastically reduced budget of the patrons, the weapons and armour of that period were cheap, poorly-done reproductions of what might have been. A well-known fact among the historians and collectors.

In short, what we see on the photographs are poorly dressed re-enactors. So when Mr. Cruise comes in to act as a foreigner re-enacting the re-enactors..., who can tell what's accurate and what's not?

'Will the circle be unbroken...'

Quang

[frank h]

Hi Johan
I enjoyed the film, Andrea bringing out the figure was only to be expected.

Tom Cruise immortalised in a Spanish figure, wheres the harm?

Still think his best role was in "Interview With The Vampire"

Frank :thumb:

[Johan]

Quang, thank you for that insight. So if I'm correct, those "samourai" were only keeping up appearances? I never knew that, thought some of that tradition might still be "alive" at that time (ca. 1860ies) Thank you, I learned something again today. So by 1860 the Japanese samourai culture would be "decadent" in a way...

Yes, I knew that after 1600 and the battle of eh.. sekigahara (?) there were more than 250 years of peace.

... But then..... what's the point of that movie with Tom Cruise, if he's reenacting the reenactors??? :lol: :lol: :lol: So the heroic events depicted in the movie never took place, hahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: !


Frank, of course there's no harm in producing a Tom Cruise figure ... and he does have some talents as an actor, I've seen worse - I like him in "a few good men".
But really, is there a POINT in producing such a figure when we want this hobby to be the making and painting of "historical miniatures"? Unless we all agree here and now that from now on we'll include miniatures representing characters from cinematographic history as well - .... well, we might of course ... Laurel and Hardy as Legionnaires, well ok, why not. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[yeo_64]

I suppose it's meant for die-hard fans of Tom Cruise <_< who happen also to be modellers Something like the Elf Archer figure(Orlando Bloom),which I did up for a dear friend of mine for Christmas,and she was thrilled to bits Just my 2-cents worth.Cheers Kenneth.

[Kreston]

That is some interesting information, Quang. I sure would like to see you release an armored Samurai warrior!

Kreston

[jitch0t]

if you guys don't like it, don't buy it, don't blame Andrea

i liked the movie and i bought the fig, don't care if it's accourate or not... but as i can see, i don't have room here because i painted the Elf Archer and now this one and this hobby is for "historical miniatures"

ok, see you

[Johan]

but as i can see, i don't have room here because i painted the Elf Archer and now this one and this hobby is for "historical miniatures"


You misunderstood my posting there - at the end I tried to "build a bridge" to include cinematographic history as subject matter for historical miniatures - after all, the history of movies is history as well. That's why I mentioned that figures of Laurel and Hardy as legionnaires would be a good idea... I mean that.

[Guy]

I believe this forom is for "Miniatures", whether they be historical, fantasy, or otherwise. I paint historical and fantasy, hollywood, and anything my eyes strike me as fun to paint. I have Star Trek figures as well as Napoleonic figures. I enjoy all aspects of the hobby of painting and sculpting and this forom covers all aspects of the hobby. "Anything Figure"

[Jason W.]

Originally posted by Johan@Feb 8 2004, 11:06 AM
Unless we all agree here and now that from now on we'll include miniatures representing characters from cinematographic history as well - .... well, we might of course ... Laurel and Hardy as Legionnaires, well ok, why not. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Hmmmmm...Thats an idea! ;) :lol: :lol: :lol: Thanks Johan

I have just the head for Stan!

[Johan]

Hmmmmm...Thats an idea! Thanks Johan

Jason man!!! Where did you get that pic!!! Thanks, you make my day! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh it would be GREAT, a vignette of that! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[frank h]

I take your point Johan
But a figure is a figure where ever the history
comes from.

Frank :thumb:

[Jason W.]

Originally posted by Johan@Feb 8 2004, 12:14 PM
you make my day! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh it would be GREAT, a vignette of that!
Or how about this one

Hey, these guy's were historically versatile :lol: :lol: :lol:

[jitch0t]

Originally posted by Johan@Feb 8 2004, 06:06 PM
But really, is there a POINT in producing such a figure when we want this hobby to be the making and painting of "historical miniatures"? Unless we all agree here and now that from now on we'll include miniatures representing characters from cinematographic history as well - .... well, we might of course ... Laurel and Hardy as Legionnaires, well ok, why not. :lol: :lol: :lol:
That's "building a bridge"? omg, sure

well, no problem

[Johan]

... :lol:

Jason, I had forgotten about that one. Just wondering, aren't there actually any figures of them? <_<

... Well, I'll never forget Stan and Ollie as legionnaires... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Dani A.]

"Where's the harm?"

I do not want to touch the question of quasi-historical, historical-fiction, or pseudo-historical cimenatographic or literary characters as opposed to accurate historical models; I think every option has his supporters, and that every option is perfectly acceptable. ALTHOUGH I believe these products are increasingly being equiparated to , and treated the same as, and (frequently) marketed (deceivingly) as, rigorous historical representations, which they are not.

What I want to remark is that this is the umpteenth (and it will -no doubt- not be the last) example of Andrea casually vulnerating copyright.
Although Andrea is not the only manufacturer doing it, this kind of stuff is very recurrent in his catalogue.
Whatever name Andrea is giving these figures ("Elf Archer", "Western Samurai", "Arachnid", etc, etc), obviously the attempt is to draw a profit of a copyrighted image, for free.

This is as I see it. And I personally find such procedures unacceptable, from Andrea or whoever.


Dani

[jitch0t]

i guess everybody knows that these kind of figs are not historical representations, they are movie representations (you can even see a clapperboard in their boxes telling you it's a fig from a movie!)

[Dani A.]

Hello,

I have, on purpose, as you may observe, used the adjective "frequently", and my commentary is not restricted to Andrea. On the other hand, Andrea markets a number of models responding to my description that DO NOT have a clapboard or any other similar logo.
Nevertheless, I would like to underline that this is not the main subject I wanted to introduce. Maybe you would like to address that other subject too?

[Anders Heintz]

I dont think there is any harm to do the movie figures, I bet a lot of modelers are saying wow I wish I could do a figure of this or that character in a movie. A lot of inspiration to figures and figure related projects derrive from the movies.

And it's kind of funny that such figures like the 'Elf Archer' or 'Western Samurai' get bashed so much, while, lets say Latorre's 'Roman General' which is the same exact issue, gets nothing but praise.

[Johan]

Anders, Latorre just did a Russell Crowe figure once - Andrea do Hollywood movie characters on a regular basis, almost each month there's another one. But OK, let's bash Raul Latorre a bit...(bash, bash ) :lol: :lol: :lol: ... Although I bash him reluctantly, because I simply adore his Madagascar pirate bust!

Seriously, the point has been raised that there exists a copyright on movie characters - which is only normal and legal, as there exists such a thing like "merchandizing" - gadgets, posters, toys, ..... FIGURES ???
... Well, if Andrea DO pay Hollywood for producing/merchandizing movie related stuff, then it's ok I guess - now, do they pay for that or not? Do they have a licence for marketing/merchandizing miniature kits of hollywood movie characters on a regular basis or not?
That is the question, I think. Andrea themselves should be perfectly able to answer that question. It's quite simple, just an objective "yes" or "no" question, and there's absolutely no "bashing" here.

Second, there is the point that too many people will believe that what they see in a Hollywood movie is historically accurate - this is a good point... but that's human nature I guess; many will want to have a figure which is an accurate depiction of a character in a movie... but then there are many others - me, for one - who want to have historically accurate miniatures - and I too swear under my breath when I see another of them "movie" figures represented as "historically accurate"... But what can you do about it?

Now about movie related figures: as I said before, I'd love a two figure vignette of Laurel and Hardy as legionnaires, and I once saw pictures of an awesome Nosferatu figure by Mike Good - done to perfection, you'd have sworn it was the real one! The Terminator bust by John Rosengrant was also a milestone in "figure history". So there is some good movie related stuff as well I think. In these cases the work was simply also openly displayed as being "Nosferatu" and the "terminator" from the movies, no funny cloak names like fe. "old german vampire" and "cyborg governor of California"... I guess these were "legal" because they were just one offs?

[Robin]

Hi all

my tuppence worth

The figures by John and Mike are one offs maybe, Legal no......copies of a copyrighted things are not legal, tolerated maybe but definatley not legal. Anders has a point, this discussion never came up for Maximus, just the praise, as to why I don't know and more to the point I don't actually care.

Characters from films will always be copied, its part of human nature to copy the things we like. I have seen this thread on ALL and I mean ALL the forums I have been on from hmf to here. Point being if you don't wanna do em don't buy em. Some people do so leave them to em, best way stick to what you like doing, like I do.

Me I love a historically correct figure, the film figures are a laugh a talking point. I think the sculptors do a good job on them they are just not for me. I have better things to worry about than Andrea getting done for copyright infringement. Its there risk let them take it.

Just my bit, soapbox taken down and put away.


Robin

[John Long]

Originally posted by Robin@Feb 10 2004, 04:44 PM
The figures by John and Mike are one offs maybe, Legal no......
Forgive the tangent, but John's may be a special circumstance in this regard one off or not. Wasn't he on the SF crew for the film?

[quang]

Johan,

You've got a point (er, twelve actually...).

As for me, I'd stand in line for a 120/150mm figure of Uma Thurma dressed in Bruce Lee's outfit and wielding a katana. But I'd hate it if they call it 'Kill Pill'. :lol:

Quang

[Johan]

Yeah, Uma Thurman - GREAT! It would be a good idea for the KiLiPiLi range! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[quang]

:thumb: :lol:

[Dani A.]

Hello,

I hasten to say that I consider Latorre's "Roman Cavalry General" exactly the same case as "Western Samurai" as to the copyright question. And so is the case with El Viejo Dragón "British Navy Officer", which is obviously Crowe in his "Master and Commander" role. I drew this subject because we were talking about the last Andrea release, but in my comment I already mention Andrea is not the sole offender.

As to the question about if Andrea (or other manufacturers) pay those rights or not, I think this has an easy answer: should them respect the legal question, certainly they would sell these products under their real names, and not nebulous denominations; and they would use any related logos, etc. Well, they do not, isn't it?

BTW, I proposed the same question in a Spanish forum where some of the affected manufacturers or sculptors contribute, and no explanation was never offered. To the contrary, the sculptor of one of these pieces "argumented" his work could not be prosecuted (or so he thought) because he did not make the reproduction exactly as the original character, he applied some small changes.

This is not a question of the major film producers, or whoever holds copyright, earning much money or not, or arguing that paying for the copyright would result in a more expensive figure. It is NOT LEGAL - full stop. By this same theory, a lot of delicts could be "justified". And the firms involved in such activity do this in order to get a bonus in their sales, for their benefit.

I'm sure mr. Carlos Andrea is not exactly thrilled when, as has been the case on a number of ocassions, parts of his figures are pirated and unlawfully used by unscrupulous manufacturers. Or when he knows that his figures are cheaply copied, whole, in resin, and sold, by some individuals or shops. But I'm sure these infractors would no doubt offer some "justification", too, like high costs of paying sculptors or import taxes "forcing" them to so act. But all of this is illegal, too.

[JCOX]

Originally posted by Robin@Feb 10 2004, 05:44 PM

The figures by John and Mike are one offs maybe, Legal no......copies of a copyrighted things are not legal

Robin
Forgive my ignorance when it comes to hollywood character copyrights, but wouldn't a one off (meaning a single figure made by a single person for non-profit use ) come under the fair usage laws? Would it not be the same as singing a copyrighted song (karaoke) or copying a favoite cd? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding fair usage as it applies to his subject or the situation with Rosengrant/Good is different. Am I missing something?

As many of you know, in my attempts at learning to sculpt I have done hollywood/real life characters. I have no personal problem with this from a moral standpoint, but would be very concerned if what I am posting/sharing in forums like this were actually illegal. If so, I will stop posting these types of projects.

-jim cox

[Johan]

I think you're entitled to sculpt whatever you like if it is for your own use - it is when you manufacture commercial figures and sell these that "copyright" issues raise their heads.

[Robin]

From what I understand about fair copyright is that you have bought into it, such as copying your favourite CD (which you bought in the first place) you have apid for the privilege, Karaoke companies will have paid the company for the right to use it on there CD's.


Copyright is such a complex issue


Robin

[quang]

Actually, there are two different instances to this issue.

First instance: I'm a great admirer of a popular artist/work-of-art (film) and I want to show my admiration by creating something (sculpture, painting,...) reminiscent of that artist/work of art.

Like Jim Cox and his Bronson bust, I can also show the picts on the Internet to share them with my friends. :thumb: There's nothing unfair of dishonest to do so.

Second instance: I'm aware that a certain artist/work of art is very popular and I want to use that popularity to make some profit. As I'm using something (the popularity) which is not mine but belongs to another (the artist), it's only fair that I pay for it (the copyrights).

Making what I consider as subtle changes (in details or denomination) in order to avoid legal troubles, is to admit at the same time that I'm doing something fishy and that I'm aware of it.

It all comes down to one's personal ethics to consider what's fair and what's unfair, what's honest and what's dishonest.

It's just a case of 'live and let live' :)

Quang

[Dani A.]

An excellent précis, my friend... I could not express it better.

:thumb:

[Johan]

It's just a case of 'live and let live'

... almost thought you said "live and let die" there :lol: - now that would have been plagiarizing, the makers of James Bond movies and P. McCartney wouldn't be too happy with that. Now it's going to take days to get that stupid song out of my head. :lol:

The point you make is very good :thumb: .

One more thing I wish to add - this example might illustrate my own humble personal opinion conc. movie-related subjects:

one of my favourite historical movies is "Gallipoli" starring Mel Gibson - for me, the best damn "war" or rather "anti-war" movie I've ever seen.
Now if I would like to have a figure of a soldier of the Australian Light Horse, like "the good guys" in the movie, then I'd certainly choose, for example, the one by The Fuselier, which is a well sculpted, historically accurate figure - period. And if I have the time, I'd also read a book about the Aus Light Horse in the Dardanelles, to understand the subject better, and learn something. That's just my personal approach.

But I really can't figure out for the life of me why I should want to have a figure of an Aus Light Horseman which has the features of Mad Max, even though I consider mr. Gibson to be a great actor...
But as has been said, live and let live, and to each his own... :) Very true!

[quang]

why I should want to have a figure of an Aus Light Horseman which has the features of Mad Max

You don't but there are millions out there who wouldn't give a damn about Australian Light Horse if it were not for Mel Gibson.

Now from those millions, if there are one or two persons who get seriously interested in WWI history, all because of MG, I'd consider it a great achievement. ;)

Scolars sneer at popular entertainment (cinema, novels, comics,...figures?) but often lose sight that many vocations started from the very stuff they despise.

Like they say, 'you only live... once'.

Q.

[Johan]

Now from those millions, if there are one or two persons who get seriously interested in WWI history, all because of MG, I'd consider it a great achievement.

Mel Gibson got me interested in Gallipoli, the Aus Light Horse and their history, the history of the Bounty Mutiny (a brilliant Antony Hopkins in that one too!), and made me appreciate Shakespeare's Hamlet! :lol:

Well anyway, those were movies that influenced me to the extent that I actually also did read some background history. Mel Gibson achieved something there indeed!

...But I didn't like "William Wallace" :... pure fiction that was :angry: :lol:

[quang]

... and 'Signs' turned you on mystic farming. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Johan]

Let me guess ... The Naked Gun with "that" scene with Priscilla, your idol's ex-wife, got you into sculpting... right? :lol:

[quang]

Exactly. Just as Demi Moore got me into pottery!

[Johan]

:lol: You ARE a man of many talents! :lol: