Interesting email from SSC regarding custom pieces.

I had thought I had posted this here but it was in the wrong thread. Anyway.

It amazes me the pomposity and arrogance that Sideshow and their """""artists""""" have the balls to go after unlicensed pieces is staggering. Can they be that aloof to know why there's a market for it? No one wants to buy their $240 POS ugly figures anymore when there's a way cheaper alternative that is easily three to five times the quality.

I hope this is the tipping point for SSC's sales to take a big decline.

I'm off to smash my custom padme sculpt with a mallet, chaps.  Can't be seen to be doing anything Sideshow consider to be illegal.  In future, I shall only admire the standard unmodified version...

Goodbye my pretty...

Natalie by Macktrucker, on Flickr

Interesting development. I wonder if it has something to do with all the Deadpool (unmasked) HS floating around? or Wolverine?

IMHO . . . Jon Deak is an HT sycophant <censored>.

He posted a pic of him holding his HELLMAN boxed figure with a hand written note on the box stating HELLBOY.

He's a God damn hypocrite.

Sideshow is basically about CONTROL and $ . . . considering Sideshow have proven themselves over the years of $%^& design and quality on many items (and also very good design and quality), but demanding / expecting HT prices from their customers along with the same level of extreme sycophant behavior like a lot of HT collectors.

DeltaForceChung wrote:IMHO . . . Jon Deak is an HT sycophant <censored>.

He posted a pic of him holding his HELLMAN boxed figure with a hand written note on the box stating HELLBOY.

He's a God damn hypocrite.

A hand written note saying HELLBOY ???


Jon's in a bind over this.

He needs his Sideshow ad and sales link revenue to fund his 1/6 toys and 1/1 car collection.

If he has to cut out a large volume of potential posts he'll lose customers to OSR, his old rival who have already severed the Sideshow umbilical cord.

Thank God, we don't have to rely on ad revenue (yet...)

Asta wrote:A hand written note saying HELLBOY ???


Jon's in a bind over this.

He needs his Sideshow ad and sales link revenue to fund his 1/6 toys and 1/1 car collection.

If he has to cut out a large volume of potential posts he'll lose customers to OSR, his old rival who have already severed the Sideshow umbilical cord.

--

Stryker2011 wrote:Thank God, we don't have to rely on ad revenue (yet...)

--

Let me put it this way.

IF our group ends up having to self-fund to keep it ad free, etc., then I'll pony up $ to support it.

HOW?

Easy. I'll auction / sell some of my spare HTF 1:6 stuff from the archives and some may probably want.

Sideshow's success is based on part due to their relationship with HOT TOYS. In the same vein, the success of HOT TOYS is based on their relationship (distribution & representation) with Sideshow. Both benefited. The business relationship for this discussion is for North America.

If I'm not mistaken HT was distributed in North America by a business in Canada called Toy Square. They distributed HT products in Canada and the US, but took a back seat when Sideshow came to their business arrangement.

HT is carried and sold by a variety of vendors in Asia through distribution agreements. If I'm not mistaken, Sideshow sells to South America and Europe as well?

If HT really wanted to, I believe they can set up their own North American based distribution or possibly a premium retail front on the West Coast in the same fashion they do in Asia (China / Hong Kong), but their business model requires a business partner to take on financial risks to set up a store front as well as set up North American distribution processes, etc. that Sideshow already have well established.

If HT and Sideshow was to ever separate, I suspect Sideshow would be more affected than HT would be.

Something to consider.

Do you think we should continue under the radar as we seem to be now, or open up to possible soon to be homeless artists and risk appearing on the radar ourselves!?

More often than not, custom pieces can be much better than commercial products, so offering an outlet for that talent could, in a way, be a benefit. Hmmm, sort of damned if you do or don't really....

CHEERS!

Rogerbee wrote:Do you think we should continue under the radar as we seem to be now, or open up to possible soon to be homeless artists and risk appearing on the radar ourselves!?

More often than not, custom pieces can be much better than commercial products, so offering an outlet for that talent could, in a way, be a benefit. Hmmm, sort of damned if you do or don't really....

CHEERS!

That's a tough one. I'd hate to see these artisans lose the ability to continue their work, but how they could be invited without it raising red flags all around would probably be nigh impossible. As more and more people discover this forum, we will eventually open ourselves up to serious scrutiny, as there is always the inevitable bone-heads who just can't keep their mouths shut and will invite other loud-mouths, and so on and so on. Search filters will ultimately give a heads up to any company (like Sideshow) looking for culprits, and all it will take is some made-up named product being called what it really is, to draw that attention. Very few people have the ability to be discrete in that regard. And, I fear, even if we did reach out to these talented folks, they would certainly spread the word about where they are moving to so they can keep their revenue stream coming; and once we get more and more of the crowd from THAT board, I fear we would be on a rapid decline of the kind of forum we are trying to promote.

Since we have no affiliation with any company, would any of this apply to us? That said, I've already used the cliche "discretion is the better part of valor" today.

GubernatorFan wrote:Since we have no affiliation with any company, would any of this apply to us? That said, I've already used the cliche "discretion is the better part of valor" today.

Maybe. Maybe not. I can see someone (Sideshow) contacting Forumotion's owners to put a cease & desist to our forum if they feel we're violating their rights. We don't have advertisers, and that's a benefit to us, for the moment. But, as Chung said, if things get too large here for Forumotion to continue to allow us a free format, we either have to pony up ourselves as members or start looking at outside venders (then it could most definitely become a problem).

Stryker2011 wrote:But, as Chung said, if things get too large here for Forumotion to continue to allow us a free format, we either have to pony up ourselves as members or start looking at outside venders (then it could most definitely become a problem).

I do not recall seeing this in the fine print -- have you? Will Forumotion force us to become a pay forum after we reach a certain number of members or posts?

Talk about pushing a concept to its ultimate, illogical conclusion...

To try to quash private artisans from conducting private commerce on the basis of "license infractions" is begging for a civil class action law suit.

Personally, I hope they get it (the suit, that is). What they propose is limitation of commerce, which is against federal law.

They're taking themselves waaaaaaaaay too seriously.

GubernatorFan wrote:I do not recall seeing this in the fine print -- have you? Will Forumotion force us to become a pay forum after we reach a certain number of members or posts?

--

There is no need to panic or worry at this time.

I believe we're reasonably fine and well and no immediate necessity about such a thing.

If and when in the future something comes up, we'll all address and face it together.

What's going on with the Sideshow debacle / insanity will not affect us.

If the worst case ever occurs, I'll treat it as if I encounter former lingerie models thrown out onto the streets naked because they were forced to give up their unmentionables from various brands.

I'll simply take them all to WALMART with me to buy simple bras and panties for them and order them some more fitting and provocative sweet nothings online for them to wear . . . in my presence.

I feel sometimes we may worry a bit too much out of caution, but still it's better to be cautious and prepared instead of being caught nude / semi-nude in the dressing room while changing lingerie.

DFC -- always the voice of calm reason... as for me, I am not sure what would be more embarrassing, being found naked in the fitting room, or with lingerie. LOL

I rather like the apparent (Asian?) rule that if you don't use the brand and franchise name, you are not infringing on the copyright, but I wonder how well that would uphold if someone tried to use it in the USA or Europe.

GubernatorFan wrote:DFC -- always the voice of calm reason... as for me, I am not sure what would be more embarrassing, being found naked in the fitting room, or with lingerie. LOL

I rather like the apparent (Asian?) rule that if you don't use the brand and franchise name, you are not infringing on the copyright, but I wonder how well that would uphold if someone tried to use it in the USA or Europe.

--

What happens in Asia stays in Asia and gets sold eventually in the US and Europe.

Chung's answer pretty much says it all... and then some.

DeltaForceChung wrote:What happens in Asia stays in Asia and gets sold eventually in the US and Europe.

Which is exactly why the peckerwoods at Sideshow are going after the little guys here. Their problems are two-fold:

1. They can't do jack do-da about the folks in Asia who are making some money with the practice and they know it.
2. Sideshow's work isn't as good, many times, as that produced by some private artisans here and they know it, but don't want to admit it. I'd hate to think they really believe throwing their weight around like that will result in anything but hard feelings. Clearly delusional.

dadrab wrote:Which is exactly why the peckerwoods at Sideshow are going after the little guys here. Their problems are two-fold:

1. They can't do jack do-da about the folks in Asia who are making some money with the practice and they know it.
2. Sideshow's work isn't as good, many times, as that produced by some private artisans here and they know it, but don't want to admit it. I'd hate to think they really believe throwing their weight around like that will result in anything but hard feelings. Clearly delusional.

--

Yeah.

I guess Sideshow is very much stuck in the 1:6 closet and can't accept and/or deny the realities of all that goes on outside the 1:6 closet.

How pathetic and sad.

Hi Folks,

When I was doing 3D art a few years ago I belonged to another forum where products i.e. 3D polygonal meshes or textures, were made and sold. In fact I belonged to several such groups and purchased and downloaded from quite a few sites.

Now the general rule of thumb was that if you created a 3D model or produced a 2D render for yourself alone you were fine it was generally considered good form, and most of us abided by it, that if you posted a render which contained items which you had downloaded free of charge it was fine to do so as long as you credited the artist / designer of the item.

If however you wished to sell your renders/movies or had an item which included a mesh or texture made by someone else then you first either had to purchase the items used from the artist / designer or company or make the items used yourself.

It seems to me unless I'm totally missing the point , please enlighten me if that's the case, that something similar applied to our custom figures in that:


a) if someone makes a head sculpt for instance unless that person has the original 1:1 actor in front of them then surely what they produce is purely their interpretation of said character, after all if you go on IMDB the chance of the actors head shot looking like the character are minimal (Karen Gillan looks nothing like Nebular for instance)


b) I rarely see custom figures for sale and if they are then what parts used are between the buyer and the seller.


c) often when customs are shown here or on other forums they often credit the parts used if not directly but I don't remember seeing someone claiming say , Sonja's armour was custom made when it obviously wasn't , they would soon be called out.


in fact this argument could get quite silly take this as a scenario "Cinderella, would you like me to make you a new skirt (1:1) next time I make one ?" ,

yes please" Okay"

"well here it is, oh btw the material was bought from x shop made by d manufacturer, the thread was bought from y shop made of hmm I cant remember, oh well the elastic was from z shop so that's okay but the buttons and lace now those i really cant remember!"

Oh darn it Sorry as i cant remember where i got those from or who made the buttons I cant even show you what the prototype looks like!!


To be honest as long as the custom figures shown are credited as being …..'s work then I don't think sideshow has a peg leg to stand on (referring to long john silver the pirate which is out of copyright btw!)


I wonder if they will start on the spare part market next?



just my thoughts


Susanna

Below is a video on YouTube courtesy of Keyboard Warriors explaining the current debacle and ongoing fallout.

Susanna, to answer your question: Technically, they do (well, mostly Hot Toys does). If you are a member of Sideshow Collectors (or Sideshow Freaks), and you check out the "Interest Threads" or "For Sale" threads, there are literally hundreds (thousands...?) really of unlicensed properties, mostly movie related (like Lady Sif/Jaimie Alexander's character in the Thor movies), which I am a part of. Now Hot Toys hasn't (and probably won't) make a figure of her, but they hold the licensing rights for 1/6 characters pertaining to those movies, and the ultimate license holder is, of course, Disney (that corporate beast that isn't afraid to demolish any and all those who get in their way). So, yes, by making a completely custom figure of said character, they are violating a few dozen licensing rights. Just like all the other custom threads, which always leads into the bootleg of a bootleg argument (but that's a discussion for a different topic). There is currently an interest thread started for said Nebula from Guardians, as it looks like there is zero chance of HT making her, as well. But as long as they hold the license, much like they hold the licenses for Aliens and Predator (and do nothing with them), they have the legal right to crush anyone who infringes on that, as does Disney.

It just keeps getting better and better.

Jon Deak at OSS posted an update "claiming" he spoke with "Executives" at Sideshow.

Last I checked, the courteous and professional customer service representatives there by e-mail, online chat, and phone are not considered as "Executives".

Very simply, Jon needs to (for transparency) acknowledge the identities / names of the "Executives". Otherwise, it's BULL$%^&.

Is it being unreasonable? I believe it's a matter of simplicity and truth.

I question whether or not he got to talk to top brass at Sideshow to answer some of his concerns, but who knows.

Jon Deak posted an update reporting that OSS doesn't have to change because it's not Sideshow's intention to go after custom artists. Though, as always on OSS, they can't offer their work for sale.

The custom section will be safe on SSF if the same rules apply, except they'll have to take the selling to private mail if Sideshow insisted.

Seems to be the Chinese bootleg companies that they don't want to see on their affiliated boards. So Jon had better delete all traces of his 'fully licensed' Hellman.

I watched the video he posted. Towards the end he mentions child labour in the third party factories in China, and claims this is part of Sideshow's motivation with the letter.