Reaper Rips-off Rackham

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by Wren
(And thanks to Nailpainter, Darth and everyone else for general thread hilarity. )

Hey, that\'s my job...take thread, add jolly fat man, hilarity ensues. Repeat as necessary.

And for the castrati...I don\'t think I want to hear a clearer version...I was creeped out enough already.

 

[Flashman14]

heh ... it\'s true!! I work essentially where NYU is so there\'s a huge batch of kids dissapointing their parents from all over the country ...!

Goths are pretty common - esp at what\'s called St Marks and in around Chelsea/Grennish Village ... They are a dime a dozen when it comes to appearance ... But like everywhere they are just impressionable kids trying to find something empowering to believe in.

 

[mouse]

better late than never...

interesting topic...but certainly very loooong.

before anyone jumps me...let me just say that this is my opinion on the idea of IP.

actually, all this is very subjective. just say that someone already had an idea of something...but didn\'t copyright it and then someone else came along and stamp legally mine all over it...who is plagarising who?

i remember a somewhat similar posting that i did eons ago...what is original? werewolves? vampires? hobbits? halflings?

music...how original is it? can anyone safely say that it is not somehow influence by something else? can you invent the notes? what will happen if the earliest musician copyrighted the notes? will that make every modern day musician a thief?

reaper, rackham or gw....who is stealing from who? doesn\'t rackham look a lot like anime characters? will that make rackham a thief too?

if i painted and decorated my house in let\'s say A fashion and someone looks at it and likes it and did his house similarly, will he be considered a thief too? or it isn\'t so just cos i didn\'t make it legal?

the law is \"dead\" but we are not and it is a fine line to draw between what is IP stealing and what is not.

of course i am against stealing others works but it becomes silly if we resorted to fineprint reading...let\'s just leave it to the lawyers and such...

PS: actually, there\'s nothing in this world that\'s original to us...food for thought.

 

[barkel]

sorry, but...

I hate to be the kind of person who will nitpick at little things, but something in Mouses post just rubbed me wrong.

To Mouse: there is a huge difference between being influenced by something and copying it all together. You seem to lump the two situations together. What this thread is trying to determine, or at least it was before we were derailed about two pages back, was whether the instant case of Rackham v Reaper was simple influence or copying.

I personally believe that it was a case of influence. What do you think?

I also disagree with copying the ideas of others, but I don\'t think we should leave it to the lawyers. By discussing it here we can all better figure out what areas of \"influence\" are off limits and what is safe. As an artist is several mediums it is very important for me to have a good idea of where I cannot and should not go.

barkel

ps. And please do not take offense at this, but you said, \"actually, there\'s nothing in this world that\'s original to us...\"

I really hate this idea. It seems very dangerous to me. I think we should have a whole new thread on it. It is the idea that \"It\'s All Been Done.\"

I personally believe this to be the mantra of the uncreative mind. I\'d like to point out that this general idea has been around for thousands of years. It is very literally in the Bible. And I certain believe there has been innovation since then.

I am not saying you are not creative. I have seen many creative people fall into the trap of this lie. Please do not allow yourself to believe this. It is the first step to losing all creativity.

 

[Valander]

Originally posted by barkel
I really hate this idea. It seems very dangerous to me. I think we should have a whole new thread on it. It is the idea that \"It\'s All Been Done.\"

I personally believe this to be the mantra of the uncreative mind. I\'d like to point out that this general idea has been around for thousands of years. It is very literally in the Bible. And I certain believe there has been innovation since then.

I am not saying you are not creative. I have seen many creative people fall into the trap of this lie. Please do not allow yourself to believe this. It is the first step to losing all creativity.

I have to agree with barkel on that idea. I feel that the instant I ever start thinking that everything that ever can be created has been, that\'s the very instant that I\'ll stop even trying to be creative (even if only on a subconscious level). Too easy to fall into apathy with that road, and apathy...oh, who cares?

On the IP thing: Influence is one thing, and it\'s something that has happened in every art form since the beginnings of art. Heck, cavemen were inspired by each other\'s stick figures on the rock. Anyway, it\'s a much more modern idea that someone can \"own\" a creative work (cavemen didn\'t care).

The trouble comes in when you try to define just exactly what it is that is owned. Is it the idea that the artwork is portraying, or is it the actual colors, shapes, and so on within the artwork?

Most modern laws regarding IP basically allow for some claim to both of those categories, though it\'s obviously easier to prove the \"this is the same shape\" thing (or, \"this is the same code/words/pictures\") than trying to prove the idea. (Though that\'s often pressed, too, mostly in Patent-type cases.)

To me, these Reaper sculpts are past the \"influence\" criteria; they are deliberately trying to make knock-offs of characters seen in Rackham stuff. That may, or may not be, an infringement on IP.

You could look at it this way: Does Wizards of the Coast (or, older, TSR) \"own\" the intellectual property of a \"half-elven ranger?\" If so, it could be argued that they\'d be the only ones allowed to make models like that. Obviously, there are a few variants of that \"idea\" around.

However, since some of these look like they\'re meant as \"replacements\" for the Rackham models, there may be more to it than the above.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, just a humble computer science student and miniature painter...

 

[GarnetJubilee]

Originally posted by barkel
Can anyone really prefer Pepsi to Coke? Personlly I\'d rather drink brake fluid.

Hey! That\'s a waste of good paint-stripping product! What\'s wrong with you?

You can drink this can of oven cleaner instead. I can\'t get it to work like it\'s supposed to.

In all seriousness, I dunno how people can get so riled up about coke vs. pepsi. I usually drink whatever diet soda the restaurant happens to have contracted to serve. Of course, I prefer diet dr. pepper, but for some reason they won\'t put that in their fountains!

Oh.. and I can\'t believe that this topic is up to 5 pages! I didn\'t think it was -that- big of a deal.

 

[Flashman14]

This should be it\'s own thread ...

I prefer Diet Pepsi to Diet Coke but regular Coke to Pepsi by a long mile ...

There\'s room for all brand of colas if the taste is going to vary as it does ...

 

[Nomis]

Originally posted by Nomis
This could lead to a whole philosophical debate over the nature of original thought!


But then



who cares?



lol

Waaaaay back on page two I raised the prospect of this becoming a debate on original thought

Guess I wasn\'t wrong!

I don\'t think this is incompatable with the idea that people move ideas forward and improve on what has gone before.
I\'ve just looked at the Reaper thief again and this seems to me to be a perfect example of the general pose of the Rackham figure generating a new idea. The use of the cloak to hold the figure up is a brilliant extension of the Rackham pose and greatly enhances the figure\'s dynamics. In retrospect the Rackham figure starts to look clumsy.

Just MHO

 

[mouse]

no offence indeed...

no offence barkel...you\'re a long time poster here too and reading your numerous postings too, i know that this isn\'t a personal attack just stating your point of view.

and i did indeed read the entire thread...believe me when i said it was looong... and with many side-tracks....

but just to clarify and add on...

Originally posted by barkel
To Mouse: there is a huge difference between being influenced by something and copying it all together. ...

agree agree...

copy: 100%, 90%, 80%, 70%,....when does it cut off to become influence??

if copy means 100% wholesale rip-off...hmm...i believe you understand...

...I personally believe that it was a case of influence. What do you think?

i agree with you, it\'s influence but reading some of the postings, it seem that there was a strong case of some who believed it was a rip-off....sigh...matter of opinion

...I also disagree with copying the ideas of others, but I don\'t think we should leave it to the lawyers. By discussing it here we can all better figure out what areas of \"influence\" are off limits and what is safe. As an artist is several mediums it is very important for me to have a good idea of where I cannot and should not go...

actually, my point of leaving it to the lawyer is in accordance to your point of view. it is that sort of statement that can\'t be read at face value. sorry for the misunderstanding.

if someone wishes to push it (that\'s the IP thingie), it may boil down to who has the power and money wins...maybe not always but likely the case...
hence, we can debate and discuss all that it is but if some \"idiots\" (not refering to anyone in particular) wishes to see \"justice\" done and claim that for instance, reaper is ripping off rackham, that\'s picking on the unnecessary.
Eg. Amazon placed a copyright on the single click shopping cart. but c\'mon, it\'s been done elsewhere in the world too but just cos they are the first to \"legalize\" it, they get the right. B&N was sued cos of this....sigh

ps. And please do not take offense at this, but you said, \"actually, there\'s nothing in this world that\'s original to us...\"

sorry but I stand by it. let me state a few examples. maybe you\'re get a clearer picture without further explanations.

eg. in the advancement of computers, the basic building block is actually the 1s and 0s. imagine that it is this that spawn the vast technologies that revolutionarise the internet, desktop computing to space explorations. but did man invent it? or has it been there all along and we didn\'t realize it until then? think of the chinese ancient yin and yang...day and night....male and female....x and y chromosomes....

eg. colours, sights and sounds. human experiences and imagination is bounded by what there is and what there isn\'t. what we create stamps from either end of this paradigm or anything in-between. what there isn\'t is based on what there is. i also cannot give you beyond what is and isn\'t because i am also bounded by what binds you.

creativity is prevalent in every man (that\'s to say woman too...sigh....). In various degrees and varied aspects. agree?

to say that \"it\'s all been done\" is a case of humility not a mantra for the uncreative person (but if the first statement is true, there is no such person who is uncreative...right?)

\"its all been done\" is not to tell a person, \"hey! its been done so why bother!\" but contrarily, it pushes one to raise the ante and realize more that can be done. only you can defeat yourself.

\"a glass of water is either half full or half empty...\" depends on how you looked at it.
\"...but whether it is half full or half empty, at least there is still a glass of water...\" defeatist or realist?

food for thought??

 

[darthfoley]

Originally posted by mouse
to say that \"it\'s all been done\" is a case of humility not a mantra for the uncreative person (but if the first statement is true, there is no such person who is uncreative...right?)

\"its all been done\" is not to tell a person, \"hey! its been done so why bother!\" but contrarily, it pushes one to raise the ante and realize more that can be done. only you can defeat yourself.

\"a glass of water is either half full or half empty...\" depends on how you looked at it.
\"...but whether it is half full or half empty, at least there is still a glass of water...\" defeatist or realist?

food for thought??

And \'i before e\' except after \'c\' and when sounded like \'a\' as in neighbor and weigh and on Tuesdays and holidays and all thoughout May and you\'ll always be wrong no matter what you say.

Oh dear...I\'ve gone all cross-eyed...

lol

 

[mouse]

isn\'t that a problem?

Originally posted by Valander
You could look at it this way: Does Wizards of the Coast (or, older, TSR) \"own\" the intellectual property of a \"half-elven ranger?\" If so, it could be argued that they\'d be the only ones allowed to make models like that. Obviously, there are a few variants of that \"idea\" around.

half-elven ranger is human+elf+ranger.
werewolf is wolf+human.
mermaid is fish+woman.
wererat is rat+man...gw called it skaven.
semi-cockroach ranger is human+cockroach+ranger...that\'s my creation...hands off!

IP laws were meant to protect creativity...or will it finally kill off creativity if carried to the letter?

If IP law was carried to the letter, will Linux exist? Isn\'t Unix suing their pants off now for using part of their OS?

if early musician were to copyright their notes, can there be music now?

 

[Valander]

Originally posted by mouse

Originally posted by Valander
You could look at it this way: Does Wizards of the Coast (or, older, TSR) \"own\" the intellectual property of a \"half-elven ranger?\" If so, it could be argued that they\'d be the only ones allowed to make models like that. Obviously, there are a few variants of that \"idea\" around.

half-elven ranger is human+elf+ranger.
werewolf is wolf+human.
mermaid is fish+woman.
wererat is rat+man...gw called it skaven.
semi-cockroach ranger is human+cockroach+ranger...that\'s my creation...hands off!

IP laws were meant to protect creativity...or will it finally kill off creativity if carried to the letter?

If IP law was carried to the letter, will Linux exist? Isn\'t Unix suing their pants off now for using part of their OS?

if early musician were to copyright their notes, can there be music now?

\"Unix\" isn\'t suing anybody, as Unix is actually a blanket term these days (incidentally, actually owned by the Open Group) used to describe a wide range of operating systems.

I believe you are probably referring to SCO (Santa Cruz Operation) and their claim that there is IP belonging to them in the Linux kernel. Far too long to go into, but suffice it to say that the judge in the current case has not been impressed with SCO\'s \"evidence\", and SCO itself has a lawsuit filed against it claiming violation of contract regarding SCO\'s purchase of certain Unix systems (mostly Sytem V related) from Novell, who bought it from AT&T.

Still, the crux of the matter is the difference between Intellectual Property and Copyright. They are not the same.

Copyrights do not last forever. Current US law states that Copyrights last for life of the author +70 years. After that, they go into public domain. So, with your music example: Symphony No. 5 by Beethoven may have had a copyright, but obviously it\'s expired and has moved into the public domain. Things in the public domain can be used by anyone, in any way, for any purpose.

Intellectual Property laws are much different. The laws are intentionally vague, and require a court to interpret each specific case. IP also does not have the clause for limitation of duration; it\'s the owner\'s until they decide to do something else with it.

I guess, in regards to the Rackham vs. Reaper argument, what the real matter to ask is whether or not you can copyright non-verbal ideas (e.g., a collection of shapes that defines a miniature). There is precedence that this is not likely (c.f. Apple vs. Microsoft circa 1982 over \"windowing systems\"), and personally I don\'t think that Reaper is in any danger of legal action over these figures.

However, I do think that it points to a lack of creativity on the part of the sculptors who \"borrowed\" so heavily from others. Personally, I wouldn\'t want to just make a knock-off of anybody else\'s work--I\'d much rather try to create something new, or at least combine ideas from several sources into a unique interpretation.

 

[supervike]

excellent point....

Originally posted by Valander
...
However, I do think that it points to a lack of creativity on the part of the sculptors who \"borrowed\" so heavily from others. Personally, I wouldn\'t want to just make a knock-off of anybody else\'s work--I\'d much rather try to create something new, or at least combine ideas from several sources into a unique interpretation.

Very good point you have here. I don\'t think Reaper has done anything illegal...but they are certainly influenced (HEAVILY) from the Rackham design.

 

[barkel]

this is fun.

Mouse said:
\"in the advancement of computers, the basic building block is actually the 1s and 0s. imagine that it is this that spawn the vast technologies that revolutionize the internet, desktop computing to space explorations. but did man invent it? or has it been there all along and we didn\'t realize it until then? think of the chinese ancient yin and yang...day and night....male and female....x and y chromosomes....\"

No one is arguing that there aren\'t intrensic laws that permeate and control the natural world as we know it. But to say that because these laws exist a computer is not a new creation is to make a leap that I\'m not prepared to make. The same physical laws that control our world were around with Moses, but Moses did not have a cell phone. He did not have internet and he did not drive a car. Of this I am certain. Somewhere along the way someone more clever than I took what he knew of the natural world and invented a new way to manipulate it.

Mouse said:
\"colours, sights and sounds. human experiences and imagination is bound by what there is and what there isn\'t. what we create stamps from either end of this paradigm or anything in-between. what there isn\'t is based on what there is. i also cannot give you beyond what is and isn\'t because i am also bounded by what binds you.\"

True, but within \"what there is,\" without question, is the subsection: \"what could be but is not yet.\" Nobody is arguing that the impossible CAN be done. It cannot, or it was never impossible, right? What I am arguing is that the relms of the possible are not known fully. Further, what we consider now to be impossible may one day be shown to be possible afterall. And that discovery will likely not be happened upon, but discovered by someone who believes that it has not all been done.

Mouse said:
\"\'its all been done\' is not to tell a person, \"hey! its been done so why bother!\" but contrarily, it pushes one to raise the ante and realize more that can be done. only you can defeat yourself. \"

I guess I don\'t understand. Has it all be done or hasn\'t it?

And you mentioned music and the copyrighting of the very notes themself. I think a distinction also needs to be drawn between discovery and invention. A note is simply the sounding vibrations in the air. When the first caveman struck his foot with a rock and screamed at A 440, he discovered a note. He did not invent it. When Leonard Cohen wrote \"I\'m Your Man,\" he had compiled a very specific sequence of notes, rhythms and words to Create a song. He manipulated what he knew of the natural world to express an emotion in a way that only he could, up to that point. No one had before expressed themself in exactly that way and he should be allowed to get credit for that. When he finally kicks the bucket we\'ll wait a few years and declair all of his work Public Domain.

barkel

 

[mouse]

precisely...

...actually your explanations seem to heavily support this particular train of thought...

the intrinsic law governing everything is there...we build upon it, we perform permutations of it, combine it and play with it and mould it. just like a child given legos...we \"make\" out of legos but didn\'t ever create legos.

be it music, art or science, the terms creation and \"ownership\" is a lofty aspiration that we humans seek but cannot achieve.
someone brought up these words, \"original thought\"...are we human capable of that? do your \"original thought\" evolve from birth or culminated over the years? if so, is it still \"original\" or a \"versioning\" of what is?

computer is a realization of ideas that evolved from what isn\'t into what is...at best, its a invention...not a creation.

INVENTION
1 : DISCOVERY, FINDING
3 a : something invented : as (1) : a product of the imagination; especially : a false conception (2) : a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment b : a short keyboard composition featuring two or three part counterpoint

when a scientist realizes a new theory...he called it a discovery...not a creation...

we are like the people in the cave....looking at shadows on the wall...

\" ...True, but within \"what there is,\" without question, is the subsection: \"what could be but is not yet.\"
...\"
interesting...but what can be but is not yet...is still within the boundaries of \"what is and what isn\'t\" and this is still what binds us. whatever that you and i can think of, is within the realms of what we know \"is\" and a negation of what we know \"isn\'t\"....it\'s what we know...or yet to know...but will that be creation or invention/discovery?

\"it\'s all been done\"...isn\'t a pit-trap...only if you want it to be...
someone said, \"there\'s no problems, only solutions...\". it\'s a matter of perspective. remember the glass of water...
\"a glass of water that\'s half full\"...optimist.
\"a glass of water that\'s half empty\"...pessimist.
\"there\'s still a glass of water\"...realist.

\"there\'s already a glass of water\"...defeatist???

discovery can be invention AND
invention can be discovery

actually, barkel, you have proven my point. there\'s no creation...it\'s what an artist aspire to do. it\'s a matter of influence either from the elements, people, happenings,...etc. and based on these influences, we work out something different.
to produce something different is formed from a basis of something(s) there...hence how can there be \"original thought\"? hence how can one truly own an idea?

you see, the difference will be the work involved. ah, that\'s a different matter altogether. but somehow, no one responded to that.

basically, this is my perspective of this matter. humans are unique and hence, everyone sees the world different. my version of the same red is your version of the same colour.

hence, exchanges of opinion is growth so no hard feelings involved. peace?

 

[mouse]

precisely...

...actually your explanations seem to heavily support this particular train of thought...

the intrinsic law governing everything is there...we build upon it, we perform permutations of it, combine it and play with it and mould it. just like a child given legos...we \"make\" out of legos but didn\'t ever create legos.

be it music, art or science, the terms creation and \"ownership\" is a lofty aspiration that we humans seek but cannot achieve.
someone brought up these words, \"original thought\"...are we human capable of that? do your \"original thought\" evolve from birth or culminated over the years? if so, is it still \"original\" or a \"versioning\" of what is?

computer is a realization of ideas that evolved from what isn\'t into what is...at best, its a invention...not a creation.

INVENTION
1 : DISCOVERY, FINDING
3 a : something invented : as (1) : a product of the imagination; especially : a false conception (2) : a device, contrivance, or process originated after study and experiment b : a short keyboard composition featuring two or three part counterpoint

when a scientist realizes a new theory...he called it a discovery...not a creation...

we are like the people in the cave....looking at shadows on the wall...

\" ...True, but within \"what there is,\" without question, is the subsection: \"what could be but is not yet.\"
...\"
interesting...but what can be but is not yet...is still within the boundaries of \"what is and what isn\'t\" and this is still what binds us. whatever that you and i can think of, is within the realms of what we know \"is\" and a negation of what we know \"isn\'t\"....it\'s what we know...or yet to know...but will that be creation or invention/discovery?

\"it\'s all been done\"...isn\'t a pit-trap...only if you want it to be...
someone said, \"there\'s no problems, only solutions...\". it\'s a matter of perspective. remember the glass of water...
\"a glass of water that\'s half full\"...optimist.
\"a glass of water that\'s half empty\"...pessimist.
\"there\'s still a glass of water\"...realist.

\"there\'s already a glass of water\"...defeatist???

discovery can be invention AND
invention can be discovery

actually, barkel, you have proven my point. there\'s no creation...it\'s what an artist aspire to do. it\'s a matter of influence either from the elements, people, happenings,...etc. and based on these influences, we work out something different.
to produce something different is formed from a basis of something(s) there...hence how can there be \"original thought\"? hence how can one truly own an idea?

you see, the difference will be the work involved. ah, that\'s a different matter altogether. but somehow, no one responded to that.

basically, this is my perspective of this matter. humans are unique and hence, everyone sees the world different. my version of the same red is your version of the same colour.

hence, exchanges of opinion is growth so no hard feelings involved. peace?

 

[PF]

Message original : mouse
...humans are unique and hence, everyone sees the world different...

Unfortunately it doesn\'t seem so obvious with the minis...

 

[Nomis]

Once we\'ve done the topic of original thought to death should I start a new thread on the number of angels that can balance on the head of a pin.
:innocent:lol

And would it matter if the angels were Rackham\'s or Reaper\'s !

 

[barkel]

um, I don\'t think I have proven your point.

Please forgive me Mouse, and other posters, if I am not seeing something that is obvious. I feel like my last post stated the exact opposite of what you seem to think it stated.

Mouse said:
\"the intrinsic law governing everything is there...we build upon it, we perform permutations of it, combine it and play with it and mould it. just like a child given legos...we \"make\" out of legos but didn\'t ever create legos.\"

I am not, have not, and would not argue that because the Legos were already there then the child\'s lego house was ALREADY invented. Niether would I ever believe a pile of disjoined legos automatically implies a lego house. A lego house is within the bounds of what can be created with the legos. But if the fat, lazy child does not use his grubby little hands to build the house, then the house does not get built. And further, may never get built if he doesn\'t get his hands busy. By this I mean that if man had never been created, music may never have been created. It is within the bounds of what can be, but not in the bounds of what IS automatically. If I do not play my guitar it will not make any noise. If we all sit on our fat bottoms all day long and do nothing, nothing will get done. Apply this to creation:

The physics that allow for the telephone have been around forever. However, Alexander Graham Bell did not just happen upon a telephone. He did not open his closet door and say, \"What\'s this? Oh a device by which I can speak to anyone in the world, how clever.\" And why didn\'t he? Because it was not there. He had to invent it. He had to take what he knew, combine it with his desires for what might be possible and invent the means to make it possible.


Mouse said:
\"(a) computer is a realization of ideas that evolved from what isn\'t into what is...at best, its an invention...not a creation.\"

Ok, perhaps I used the term creation too losely. I never intended to mean \'created from nothing.\' I don\'t presume that these
inventions are born of no prior knowledge. But neither are they necessarily an obvious next step. They require leaps of inginuity. Certainly something are obvious follow up steps. But you cannot say that everything created is an obvious next step. It is too easy from our future stance, an irresponsible in my opinion, to say, \"oh yeah, that\'s obvious, even I could have invented the cookie.\"

You cannot say that if Bell hadn\'t created the phone someone else would have. You don\'t know that. And even if there was another lab in contention that does not mean that they would have been successful, or that they would have come up with the same answers. But even if they had been successful, it still took work. It still took effort. If no one had looked for an answer to long distance communication no one would have found the answer.

It may be possible somewhere down the road that some scientist will discover a cure for AIDS. Now, try telling a current day AIDS patient, on his death bed, that the cure exists, only we don\'t know about it. We are doing a semantical tango. You say that the possibility equals the reality. I do not agree. Until that cure for AIDS is discovered it does not exist, and the proof is that people continue to die.

Now how does that relate to the arguement of ownership. Well, let me try here:

Let\'s say Dr. Guy is the scientist who discovers the cure for AIDS. Now, all the science in the world that led up to the cure was integral. And other scientists that did work on AIDS are to be commended for their work, no doubt. But Dr. Guy is the man/woman who actually made the discovery and therefore, is the only one deserving of the Nobel Prize.



barkel

ps. I don\'t believe I have proven your point of everything has been done. Quite the contrary I feel I have disproved it. Though, I do admit confusion, my head is spinning from the idea that my last post proves your point.???

pps. Let me leave with this thought: If everyone stopped trying to invent things, and stopped trying to discover things, and stopped trying to learn anything new, then nothing new would happen.

 

[mule]

Originally posted by barkel
If we all sit on our fat bottoms all day long

We\'d get more painting done???