A perfect example of why some collectors won't share images of rare stuff

[Volleydan]

There was a question asked a couple of pages ago that was never answered, and (to me) makes all the difference in the world in this discussion:

Shane, if this guy had come to you up front and asked your permission to run some custom cards using the artwork from your site, what would you have told him?

[Dean]

There was a question asked a couple of pages ago that was never answered, and (to me) makes all the difference in the world in this discussion:

Shane, if this guy had come to you up front and asked your permission to run some custom cards using the artwork from your site, what would you have told him?

Hey, your post count is 420. . . and I think he had said he was against all reproduction, so he wouldn't consent of allowing the cardbacks..

[mizak23]

I feel I need to comment on this issue since I have two concept renderings myself, and they are a fantastic part of my collection.

I personally love concept art, I save every image I find on my computer, I want to be a toy designer, so I do have a personal interest in it. I'd never sell it for personal gain or violate someone else's rights for my own purposes.

I can understand the want for people to see these treasures, because they are interesting and unique and quite frankly pretty darn cool to see what is behind the toys that we collect. That being said I can also understand the problems with sharing these peices and having someone take advantage of that openness. It really puts you off because that's like someone taking a part of your collection as those pieces do become personal whether some people like it or not. I know if I saw someone making money of the concepts I own I'd be peeved, because they don't own them, they didn't invest in them, and mainly they don't charish them, I do.

[Volleydan]

Hey, your post count is 420

The sad thing is that it took me a few minutes to figure out what you meant by that....

Back to the topic - I personally feel that preproduction pieces, especially card art, are too important to the collecting community to be hoarded and stashed away and/or kept secret by the select few that are "willing to pay hundreds of dollars" for them.

The legacy of the GI Joe toy line is more important than any of us or our individual views. I have a few rare pieces, and occasionally I get e-mails asking me to sell. Rather than retreat into my shell, I simply reply "no"....is that so hard?

By similar logic, the only version of the Mona Lisa that would exist would be in the Louvre and few people would ever see it. However, because of the preponderance of prints out there, exponentially larger numbers of people have been able to enjoy the work. Does that make the "real" one less valuable? Not at all. Do people occasionally make counterfeits? Maybe not of the Mona Lisa per se, but it happens to art all the time.

Is it sometimes problematic when you have this kind of stuff? Sure. But is it worth it when you consider the things you could contribute to the collecting community? You have to answer for yourself, but I say absolutely.

[davewhitaker]

The 'Mona Lisa' example being used here is really apples and oranges when compared to GiJoe.

The Mona Lisa was painted before copyright laws existed. It would be considered public domain and its likeness free for pretty much any use, including reproduction.

GiJoe however is wholely owned by Hasbro. The likenesses of the characters, the logo, names, everything is Hasbro intellectual property and can not be used by anyone else for any sort of monetary gain. That makes all of these custom cardbacks illegal to sell. Someone could make them for their own private collection, but the moment they start selling them they are violating Hasbro's rights.

[Dean]

The 'Mona Lisa' example being used here is really apples and oranges when compared to GiJoe.

The Mona Lisa was painted before copyright laws existed. It would be considered public domain and its likeness free for pretty much any use, including reproduction.

GiJoe however is wholely owned by Hasbro. The likenesses of the characters, the logo, names, everything is Hasbro intellectual property and can not be used by anyone else for any sort of monetary gain. That makes all of these custom cardbacks illegal to sell. Someone could make them for their own private collection, but the moment they start selling them they are violating Hasbro's rights.

Just because law's didn't/don't exsist, doesn't mean we can't be restricted by them!

[Tattoo Shane]

There was a question asked a couple of pages ago that was never answered, and (to me) makes all the difference in the world in this discussion:

Shane, if this guy had come to you up front and asked your permission to run some custom cards using the artwork from your site, what would you have told him?

I've actually answered this twice already.

As i said eariler in this thread, i'm totally opposed to repros so it wouldn't have mattered who came to me offered to make them, even if i got 100% of the cut. This isn't about money, it's about principal and the fact that some people clearly have no respect and will do anything to make a buck.

[msv]

In my opinion, whoever painted the Stratoviper painting is the owner, but because it was sold it becomes everybodys.

[mizak23]

I really have to argue that, since I got my concept art from the artist himself, that imo doesn't mean it's everyones, it was a transaction between only two individuals.

[RedClaw]

I really have to argue that, since I got my concept art from the artist himself, that imo doesn't mean it's everyones, it was a transaction between only two individuals.

That is exactly right, it is not public domain.

Now we (YoJoe!) archive submitted content, but we don't just take images without permission. You MUST respect a collector's right to protect their collection's value and their own privacy.