- This topic has 106 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
….. if I BUY something, I OWN it, and if I want to repaint it, or throw it off a cliff, or glue hair all over it, I will. The company that made the thing may own the rights to what it looks like or how it works, but they don’t own the object itself once I purchase it. If a company doesn’t want its products altered, they should rent the products out, not sell them….
This is what I feel to in a nutshell.
Sorry, but I’ll ditto that. I’ve never posted my repaints here and I probably never will, but I do not see how Windstone could legally force any of us to stop doing what we want with our own property unless we are deliberately misrepresenting it in a re-sale. If you think about it, people who repair pieces and then paint them are also technically ‘repainting’…and THEIR goal IS to make it look exactly like the production paint job! And yet there is no whinging about that? Psh.
And people who do major or even small repairs probably don’t mark their things as “repaired” on the pad.
I had never thought about very minor repairs.I do mark it in my ledger but didn’t think of marking the pad.Thanks for that insight.I do mark my pads on my repaints but only if they have bad breaks or couldn’t match the colors after the repairs.I will not do repaints on perfect Windstones…ever!Not even good paint jobs on other pyos that I know are too beautiful to paint over.It takes a lot of work and time and talent to do and personally,I think it is a bit insulting.I do not see anything wrong with fixing up damaged pieces.I am not good enough to fix Windstone sculpts though so I don’t even try that.
Every act matters.No matter how small💞
(Wanted......Brimstone Lap)
Male Hearth....one day🤞Dream on.A few things. I am NOT being argumentive! I actually don’t care if people do repaints or not– I was just trying to be helpful because we have had problems in the past and I don’t want anyone getting upset. 🙁 I’m sorry that you didn’t catch that tone from my post. It’s hard to get ‘tone’ from text, so I will speak clearly: I don’t care about repaints. The company and legal head of the company I work for does. I don’t want anyone’s parade being rained on so this was my gentle warning of “hey this has been an issue before, I don’t want anyone being blindsided if it becomes one again.”
And as long as the repaint does not infringe on an existing color scheme, it’s not breaking legal rules, it it? An airbrushed piece will look windstonish no matter what colors you use because it is done with an AIRBRUSH. We can’t copyright the use of airbrushes on windstones, that’s just silly.
Actually, it might be. I am not real clear on this. There were the brewings of legal trouble a few years back with repaints but happily things got cleared up before it got to that point. This is a John question.
Also, I support the creation of a repaint THREAD. Not a section, but maybe just a single thread where anyone who had done a repaint can post pics. That way all the repaints can be kept together, and easily documented. In my opinion, keeping repaints underground would be worse for Windstone, because then we don’t know about them either! That just creates more potential for confusion in the future.
I suggested this type of thread/topic a few years back, but I was met with a ‘slippery slope’ argument. Maybe things have changed. I don’t know. If anyone wants this please petition John– I’m staying out of it this time!
Maybe this is not what Jennifer’s post was referring to, but as a consumer, if I BUY something, I OWN it, and if I want to repaint it, or throw it off a cliff, or glue hair all over it, I will. The company that made the thing may own the rights to what it looks like or how it works, but they don’t own the object itself once I purchase it. If a company doesn’t want its products altered, they should rent the products out, not sell them. That is my owm personal, “not-affiliated-with-windstone-in-any-way” opinion 🙂
This is actually a real sticky, slightly grey area when it comes to creative works (that are covered by copyright, such as physical art). Yes, if I bought a car, I may modify it as I wish. I own it. However, with art,
you never own the right to it unless you specifically buy them via contract. TECHNICALLY if you buy a painting (or sculpture or whatever), unless you buy all rights to it, you may NOT alter it even if you own it, according to copyright law. I’m not saying this is smart or stupid… I’m not saying I agree or disagree… I’m just stating what the law itself is.
Because one of the exclusive rights granted under copyright is the individual right of the copyright owner to create derivative works from their original copyrighted material.
Modifying or altering a piece of art is infringing upon the copyright owner’s rights unless expressed permission is granted or the modification falls under fair use.
Under this law, you may not technically even destroy a piece of art that you legally purchased unless you have permission! This is sort of silly and in truth unless you bought a bajillion dollar painting no one really actually cares, but it’s there in the law. I am unclear on what happens when an art piece is made in lager quantities, though, and it is a grey area that I haven’t quite had answered.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act
As for why Breyer does not care (and encourages), I do not think they own a Trade Dress? I don’t know.
Why does Hasbro(MLP) not care/encourage? They probably stand to have more publicity from what people do with custom ponies. They are also a huge company with millions of dollars, and don’t make most of their earnings through special, custom painted art pieces.Volunteer mod- I'm here to help! Email me for the best response: nambroth at gmail.com
My art: featherdust.comAlso, if a seller sells something without mentioning it’s a repaint, or the buyer doesn’t ask/examine the auction/what-have-you closely enough, that’s on them…not the person who did the repaint.
With no disrespect intended, if someone knowingly does not list a repaint as a repaint, they are misrepresenting the item and it is indeed ‘on’ the seller.
Volunteer mod- I'm here to help! Email me for the best response: nambroth at gmail.com
My art: featherdust.comI did not mean that the seller was the person who did the repaint; in the scenario I intended to describe, they were selling a repaint done by someone else – who had no idea they were ever going to try to pass it off as something ‘official’. Obviously I agree with your scenario as well – where the person who did the repaint is also the seller.
Edit : I intended to quote Jennifer, sorry. Dunno how to fix it now.
I did not mean that the seller was the person who did the repaint; in the scenario I intended to describe, they were selling a repaint done by someone else – who had no idea they were ever going to try to pass it off as something ‘official’. Obviously I agree with your scenario as well – where the person who did the repaint is also the seller.
Edit : I intended to quote Jennifer, sorry. Dunno how to fix it now.
Thanks for the clarification! I apologize for misunderstanding you.
Volunteer mod- I'm here to help! Email me for the best response: nambroth at gmail.com
My art: featherdust.comBefore this goes any further into misconception you all need to go to the following link and read the content. This is a pretty good, and the best I’ve seen, discussion of the law, and it is the law that is the problem. Yes, Trade Dress is a big issue with lookalike colorations, but that is not the foremost problem with re-paints. The problem is that modifications to an artist’s work without permission is not legal. Because the decoration as well as the sculpture is part of the copyrighted work, that would preclude re-paints. It doesn’t seem to matter for who’s consumption the modified work is intended. Restoration and repair is not an issue if the original work is retained but changing that work seems to be illegal. So, please take the time (especially Pam) to read the following: http://www.law.indiana.edu/ilj/volumes/v81/no3/2_Durham.pdf
Why does it matter? Because modifications to copyrighted work dilutes the distinctive look of the work it weakens protection. It’s really pretty simple and easy to imagine.
I’m not touching the repaint issue with a 10 foot pole… I do what I want with damaged pieces and clearly mark anything I do modify in that way….that being said. I keep most of that to myself just because I don’t want to get into any sort of trouble here regarding that so I don’t share very often in that sense. (not that anything I have repainted could ever be misconstrued with an actual Windstone paint scheme, LOL)
What I am concerned with was what Pam had mentioned… I do a lot of repairs… am I to mark them as “repaired” or is it the owners responsibility to make future buyers aware that something has been previously damaged and then repaired? I don’t think any repair I have done has ever been 100% perfect, but some have been 99% and if you are not comparing side by side with the same sculpture some aren’t noticeable at all. Obviously someone wants something repaired to look as close to the original as possible and I do realize, perfect repair or not, it is no longer mint no matter what you do… I don’t think it should be my responsibility though to alter the pad for a repair… a repaint yes….ugh…. now I just don’t know x.x
Got a busted Windstone?
drag0nfeathersdesign@gmail.com
*OPEN for repairs**SEEKING GRAILS*
Arc-en-ciel Emperor
Siphlophis Male Dragon
Calypso Hatching Empress
Ivory Moss Sitting Baby Kirin
Tattoo Mother Kirin
Emerald Tabby Male Griffin
Tie Dye + Orion Hatching Royalty
Indigo Rockfish + Flame Tabby Little Rock Dragons
Dragon Quail + Obsidian Frost Old Warriors
Betta Sun Dragon + Male Dragon
Dreamscape, Orion, Poison Dart, Fireberry, Spangler + Tigerberry DragonsFor a really small repair I dont actually think it is necessary to mark the pad with repaired, but I think it would be a good idea for any piece that has undergone extensive repairs. If nothing else, maybe document on paper the work that was done and try to keep that documentation with the piece.
This is actually a real sticky, slightly grey area when it comes to creative works (that are covered by copyright, such as physical art). Yes, if I bought a car, I may modify it as I wish. I own it. However, with art,
you never own the right to it unless you specifically buy them via contract. TECHNICALLY if you buy a painting (or sculpture or whatever), unless you buy all rights to it, you may NOT alter it even if you own it, according to copyright law. I’m not saying this is smart or stupid… I’m not saying I agree or disagree… I’m just stating what the law itself is.
Because one of the exclusive rights granted under copyright is the individual right of the copyright owner to create derivative works from their original copyrighted material.Wikipedia is not the place to go for legal information. Not trying to be a brat or anything, but this is incorrect. I am doing a graduate course right now on copyright, digital copyright, and intellectual property. You might have this argument for lp items if they were numbered; I know this was done on some earlier items, like wind wizards. The best place to search is the law itself or authoritative analysis of the law. The best online source I have encountered so far is Lexis Nexis; you might be able to use it through your public or university library.
In the United States, artistic (visual) works have moral rights attached to them. For sculptures, to have the extra protection of moral rights, they need to exist in a single form or 200 or less limited editions copies that are numbered and signed by the artist (Section 106a of the Copyright Act). Most Windstones are produced in higher quantities than this. Since most Windstones don’ qualify for moral rights protection, I could spray paint it, roll it in kitty litter, smash it into a million pieces, take a picture of this, and display the picture as a new creation. If anyone is interested in this, there was a great case with a man making art out of mutilated Barbie dolls…more information upon request! Changing a piece of art (or a book, a picture in photoshop) into something new does fall under derivative works, but with the four factors of fair use, people repainting for private use are safe. Even some derivates works that are then sold are not infringment under fair use. Consider Alice Randall’s “The Wind Done Gone”, an unauthorized derivative work of “Gone with the Wind”.
Some rights of the copyright holder are lost at the first sale (First Sale Doctrine, section 109a). This allows people to resell books, Windstones, and CDs as used, and libraries to loan items without infringing. Without losing some of the exclusive rights (like exclusive distribution) at first sale, copyright holders could bring and infringement suit against anyone distributing (selling) the work.
Man do I hate this issue. >_<
"He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom."
-J R R TolkienOkay, I’ll put in my two cents before I have time to rewrite, worry about stepping on anyone’s toes, hurt anyone’s feelings, tiptoe around what I really think and feel, etc.
I agree with Pam. I buy it, and it is mine, regardless of the legal mumbo jumbo. I do not paint, but I do have several repaints. As long as I do not try to pass them off as painted by Windstone, I feel comfortable with them being repaints, regardless of the “lawyer speak.”
The Windstone “look” is quite distinctive to anyone who collects them, and the repaints I have commissioned have their felt pads marked as repaints; in fact I would say their felts are pretty much defaced by the disclaimers. I don’t like it, but I understand it. For non-collectors, they would have to be blind or illiterate not to know they are repaints. Of course someone could peel off part of the felt or paint the felt black, but a typhoon could hit me too. The odds are against both, so I don’t worry about every “what if?”
As for repairs being marked as such, I definitely want to know. I don’t care how good the repair is, it is not the way it came from the factory. No matter how small the repair, it is still not the way it came from Windstone.
Edit: Regarding the issue of a thread for repaints, I have long been an advocate for this. Windstone should be encouraging people to show their repaints and not actively discouraging them. People will do repaints regardless of whether it is frowned upon; why not benefit from it? Not everyone can afford the eBay specials, or very many of the regular production pieces either. How long do people look without being able to buy? Eventually they just stop looking and drift away. Windstone needs to maintain interest in their products, and this is a good way to do it. Let’s face it; the forum generates a lot of interest in buying new pieces; and anything that keeps members interested and active will help sales.
I will spend the time and money to get a definitive answer to this question and how exactly it applies to Windstone pieces. Give me a few days.
I am not trying to be a butt, really and truly. But there won’t be a definitive answer to fair use because it’s decided case by case.
You probably don’t have the right to do whatever you want to a work of art. Art is not a simple product, it’s intellectual property. It’s far more complicated and far less solid than simply stealing, but you have to consider not just the legal implications, but the financial implications.
If you think about it, many PYOs demand prices that are, on average, far higher than a similarly sized production (or even limited production) official Windstone piece. In part, it’s because they are done by talented artists and they are mostly one-of-a-kind. They almost certainly compete with production Windstone pieces. The blanks are only a maximum of $40 (only part of which can be considered profit by Windstone) and some people are fetching north of $200!! This is not a bad thing…Windstone makes the PYO sculpts available, so almost by definition, they must also allow you to sell your painted pieces.
However, when you get to color schemes that look similar to Windstone production schemes, you’re crossing a line. And when you’re repainting production pieces, you’re also crossing a line. The reason–because they are sold as a piece of art from Windstone with only a handful of painters that are allowed to create official color schemes.
This doesn’t make anyone who fixes and repaints a badly damaged piece a bad person, but it doesn’t mean that anyone should simply shrug and say “I bought it, it’s mine.”
With every repaint, there is the potential to confuse a customer as to the source and value of that piece, and as a result, the potential to hurt Windstone financially. With every repaint, there is the potential to keep a new color scheme from becoming a new line because it wouldn’t be in Windstone’s interest to create a production line that resembles a repaint. And with every repaint, a person has taken a production piece (hopefully not a limited production or a OOAK artist’s edition!) and turned it into a OOAK piece with potentially higher value than the original piece, or any other similar sculpt that Windstone currently has for sale. As a result, repaints have the potential (intentionally or not) to compete with regular Windstone sales.
When a court looks at the fuzzy IP landscape surrounding art, they won’t just take into consideration whether or not it is RIGHT (morality and legality are two different topics) to modify someone else’s art, but whether or not it results in real or potential financial damage to the artist, whether there is potential confusion as to the source or worth of a modified piece of work, and whether or not the modification has directly or indirectly damaged the value of original pieces of art. Certainly, repaints fit the bill. I can think of at least one repaint that fetched a price far higher than a regular production piece available in the Windstone store.
People certainly will get away with treating art as simply a product. It’s very difficult to catch all IP offenses. However, keep in mind that this is the livelihood of an ARTIST (rather, several artists), not some giant company that uses machinery to endlessly stamp out widgets. Judicious use of repairs and paint is fine, as long as the company agrees, but rampant repaints aren’t.
Quite frankly, it’s surprising that Windstone tolerates them at all. After all, it is perfectly within a publisher’s right to force booksellers to destroy unsold copies of books because the author and/or publisher OWNS the right to the intellectual property between the two covers. If you ever come across coverless books (which indicates that the book was removed from a publisher’s inventory as unsold), DO NOT purchase them. Whoever is selling them has no right to make money on those books.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
