Hello everybody…….

Wolf Girl. Resin copies,two scales

NOW available on Dolman Miniatures website

TWO scales,1/10 and 1/12.Resin Bust

More info,videos and images on: https://www.facebook.com/Dolman-Miniatures-543771685741135/

https://dolmanminiatures.com/

Copying kits is a crime that hurts original artists & producers. Help support your favorite artists by buying their original works. PlanetFigure will not tolerate any activities related to recasting... etc etc. I agree with this statement, don't get me wrong.

But, what about the clear fact that this bust is from GOT, this is not 'Wolf Girl' this is Sansa Stark, the actress Sophie Turner. Surely, this is not right, as this is a clear duplication of a character from a TV show, where no royalties have been to the producers of the show or in fact the actress whose likeness has been used.

Many years ago the same occurred with a model of Sean Bean aka Sharpe. The figure had to be removed from production because the manufacturer did not seek permission to use his image rights.

This bust of 'Wolf Girl' is not the only one on the market doing this. This is wrong and should not be happening. I am very surprised that HBO have not taken legal action as a breach of copyright and image rights. I think one day one of these manufacturers may be in financial trouble as a result of this issue.

I am sorry I was not targeting Dolman miniatures. You are correct Young miniatures, Andrea are all doing exactly the same. This does not make it right though.

The simple reason why busts and figures of popular movie and TV characters are produced without permission is the exorbitant cost of obtaining the copyright approval.

Producing commercial figures and busts is a marginal business at the best of times, but when you have to pay for the copyright and licence fees it turns a marginal business into a loss-making business.

Yes, everyone does it, but as Jonathon says "That doesn't make it right". I agree.

Here's my problem...……. I've purchased several Game of Thrones-inspired busts and none of them are officially licenced HBO merchandise.

I'm guilty of knowingly and directly supporting illegal intellectual property theft and copyright infringement by purchasing these products, and so is everyone else who does the same.

This is essentially the same argument we have against recasters - stealing someone else's hard work and property to make a quick buck. I support pF's stand against recasters, but I wouldn't support a similar stand against producing figures and busts with copyright consent.

I'm a hypocrite.

And now I'm going to place an order for the Wolf Girl bust, which I think shows a great likeness to Sophie Turner from season 8 of GoT.

We do not produce any loss of money to the big movie producers when making these figures, we are a drop of water in the ocean
The recasters if they produce a great loss of money to us
The comparison between recasters and us do not think it is the most appropriate

This discussion came up a while ago.

Yes, unauthorised copying (even if the copy doesn't specify who/what it is) is illegal. It is also illegal to make a copy of a person's likeness without their permission (so JasonB, having Russell Crowe, just happening to be dressed as a Roman general is also illegal).

However, as some have stated, it appears that this is a drop in the ocean for the copyright owners and probably isn't seen as worth pursuing (beware however, Disney is notoriously litigation, so purveyors of faux 'Jack Sparrows' beware).

The real issue is raised by Tony Dawe: it's not a crime to buy them, but it is a matter of personal conscience. As he says:

Routes out include the old idea of 'stick it to The Man' hippy/student trope about 'liberating' goods from stores and the 'public good/public harm' argument that no real harm or loss is involved (well, technically the global Mega-Corp copyright owner is losing several $000s in licence fees... but they earn [milking/exploiting?] $bns anyway, so they deserve it; or do they?... discuss).

Of course one can also argue that the fig manufacturers are (probably knowingly) breaking the law and are intentionally sailing close to the wind, knowing that they'll probably get away with it. Which gets back to Jonathan's point and raises issues of whether in buying such figs (knowing that they're not licenced) , buyers would be, at best, acting immorally and, at worst, complicit and an accessory to crime (like with buying stolen goods). As far as I can see, few legislations do this although France and Italy have made buying knock-off handbags etc illegal.

All a bit of an ethical minefield, but I suspect that as Tony says, the argument that the harm (ie financial and potentially reputational loss) done to small fig manufacturers by re-casters is of a different order relative to the harm done to the Mega-Corps would prevail with most modellers.

Ethically this doesn't hold water (killing someone a bit is the same as killing someone a lot), but it no doubt serves as a rationale for many.

Not strictly true (that it is a drop in the ocean may be).

The reality is a loss of the licence fee (to which they're legally entitled), potentially damage to the brand/reputational loss through poor quality and/or overexposure and an opportunity cost of lost sales should another manufacturer wish to sell licenced versions.

A totally different issue: but why do so many 1/10th vs 1/12th scale photo comparisons show such a big difference in image size?

The ratio 10:12 equates to 0.833, so a 10cm bust in 1/10 would reduce to 0.833 in 1/12th (wouldn't it?).

Yet, looking at this (and other product photos) the ratio seems to be more like 10:7.58 which equates to 1/13th

See below (measurements are from my screen, not the real thing)... or have I got it terribly wrong?

This is a rationalisation and doesn't alter the legal situation... as you say, it ends up being a matter of conscience (BTW: I'm not particularly arguing against it, just enjoying the academic argument).

BTW: as far as personal image is concerned, when we last discussed this I said: Having read around it a little, I suspect that both the reproduction of a character (clothes, styling, make-up etc) and an actual person (recognisably, say Johnny Depp) would be illegal under US law*

*this is under privacy rather than copyright, also see the EU ECHR privacy regulations

See the links below for the previous conversations (see Hypertex's excellent response which covers most of what I found):
https://www.planetfigure.com/threads/prototype-licensing-and-copyright.124759/#post-960838

https://www.planetfigure.com/threads/heroes-for-gordon-part-3-scale-1-9.124255/

I think it's a great release. Interesting comments about intellectual property rights etc. - not imho to be equated with recasting.

Cheers

Huw

If someone wants to use my face to sculpt a bust, it is going to be free ... but hurry because I might change my mind

The first point before debating bout the size is the imposibility to do so if it's based on a scale
Yes 1/10 of what a girl whose size is 1,50m or a basket player of 2,10m, plus the scale is based on the full body, has she a long trunk with shrt legs or a short trunk on long legs .

This is a debate witout possible answer

Basicaly
54mm is for figurines ( english normalisation ) of 54mm from sole of the foot to eyes level
1/32 is reducing any real size ( divided ) by 32

So in figurines expressed in size 54mm it means that a figurines of a mongol greek, roman, chinese, vietnamese is 54mm from foot to eyes; all the same size .
1/32 means the size may vary according to the real size of the represented persona
+ lot of manufacturers who never understood normalised size from complete size or from scale
exemple the first set of King&Country announced on the bxes 1/32 where the vehicle was realy 1/32 but the soldiers the size of the old american toy soldier 60mm

So there is no point in debating, they produce what they want believing too be depository of the only truth

True for figs and indeed different busts of different people, but here we're talking about the same sculpt of the same character from the same manufacturer, one in 1/10 the other 1/12.

My maths tells me that the 1/12 should be 0.832 of the height of the 1/1o version. The photo (and other similar multi-scale releases) suggest a ratio of 0.758... nearer 1/13.

It may not sound much but visually it's clear (as below: not to scale).

BTW: I moved this discussionto: https://www.planetfigure.com/threads/bust-scales.159724/#post-994750

I to have enjoyed watching the series, I think its great to have sculptors create busts and figures in miniature from this series and other great movies.
To me it would be a privilege to have a mini me made, and again it shows tribute to these wonderful films and the actors who are usually paid quite well to star in them.

If the production companies, actors feel they have been robbed of a bit of coin by these tributes then perhaps they could/should hire these sculptors to produce
such amazing figures, rather than the poor quality " Action figures " that are licensed..
But is it that they dont want to pay top dollar for top quality themselves. Just a thought.

I reserve the right to buy figures/busts of the actors who I admire..licensed or not..

The Sanza bust is a great likeness, I'm hoping Miss TURNER would be flattered, not angry at the fact she has been portrayed in miniature..
Our hobby is a small enough niche not to have the Sculptors hounded for giving us these fantastic
limited edition sculpts..

Just my thoughts..


Smithy

BRAVO

That's your decision; others who make a living from their face/characterisations may think otherwise (and the law protects such rights)

I suspect that it's more to do with climbing on a successful film/TV series/book's bandwagon in order to make money.

'They' don't hire sculptors: licenses are let to others to use the copyrighted material

You have no such legal 'right'; if you do you are complicit in IP theft, a crime.

Hi Neil,

I will keep that in mind, in the mean time.. I will enjoy my modelling.. I think you've convinced me to purchase the Sanza bust.. Time to walk on the dark side...
Thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge on Copyright laws...