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

[rah-digga]

Thanks RED,

Then clearly it was stolen.

RAH, this is one-of-a-kind art from Hasbro for internal use.

And even if it's a photo, you own the copyrights of that photo and its right to use. Even if he doesn't own the right to the character, he does own the right to the works and its commercial use - so long as that use is not in violation of the group that owns the rights to the character itself.

So his photos and the art are specifically his and his alone and it is a proven one of a kind item, so there is only one obvious conclusion.

[rah-digga]

You know this guy is a member of this comunity right?

[RedClaw]

You know this guy is a member of this comunity right?

8,001 people are a member of our community. And our communty has standards of conduct, just like any other community.

[gaelinic]

RAH, this is one-of-a-kind art from Hasbro for internal use.

And even if it's a photo, you own the copyrights of that photo and its right to use. Even if he doesn't own the right to the character, he does own the right to the works and its commercial use - so long as that use is not in violation of the group that owns the rights to the character itself.

So his photos and the art are specifically his and his alone and it is a proven one of a kind item, so there is only one obvious conclusion.

I'm not sure I'd go that far. Now, I do not know copyright law. However, I think about the image. Once he posted the image, I'm thinking it became public. From reading the original post, I just the feeling that big time collectors value the uniqueness of their collections and do not want that uniqueness to be diluted by everyone having a copy of it. I'm not sue the original poster would have a leg to stand on if he tried to sue the guy. The only ones who could send the seller a cease and desist letter would be Hasbro. The original poster only bought a piece of art. The acual image belongs to Hasbro.

That being the case then all individuals working on reproduction cardbacks and decals, could have their services cut. However, I'm not sure that Tattoo Shane really has any authority in telling the seller to stop using the image.

Personally, I'm thinking the guy is just making the image available in cardback form to other collectors. Now, Tattoo Shane wanting to maintain the unique quality of his image is something I can understand. I'm guessing he doesn't want its collectible quality to be diluted. And that, is what I think most hard core collectors want.

Is your artwork the only available image of that piece? Was the Strato Viper image available anywhere else before you posted it?

[KrymsynGardImmoral]

Somewhere...(probably on HISSTANK)...Obiwanjacoby is screaming into his computer screen.....


I have dealt with Rick a lot, Shane is a good friend of mine in the hobby....and this was something I just wasn't sure about. I think it is a sweet image, and the cardback looks great, and I like to see people that express their enjoyment of GI joe through artwork, or computer skills, or a combination of the two.

I didn't think much of it at first when i saw it...

...but then i realized that I too own art and images that are one of a kind pieces, many that have never been seen publically, or represent items no one even know ever existed...And i realized how angry I would be if someone took an image I posted, especially if it was in an effort to "share" information with the community, and used it for their own gain. It would have been one thing to make it for himself, but another to sell it for a profit.

I like Rick and his products, he has really hooked me up in the past with decals and images for my customs, but this is a grey area that I can't agree with at all. We (people like Shane and myself) put a lot of work, and cash, into "collecting" our hobby the way we do. I really hate to say I think something that looks this cool istn't right, but, it really isn't IMO.

I also have to say i am pleasantly surprised at the groundswell of support Shane's dilemma is generating. There was a time, say previous to January of '06, that this thread would have gone down in flames...literally. I am glad to see the growth the YoJoe community has experienced since some pruning was done.

[Volleydan]

Copyright law can be extremely confusing - that's why attorneys who specialize in copyright law can afford all the toys they want

I don't claim to have a full understanding, but it seems that owning an image and owning the rights to duplicate said image are two different things. There are also distinctions to be made based on whether the art in question is an original or a copy/duplicate/print. Otherwise, wouldn't anyone with a print of the Mona Lisa have some say?

I have a friend who collects Hasbro art and other pre-production items, and he's wont to believe that each item is a one-of-a-kind deal. Being a born skeptic, I tend to think that there are too many offices in the Hasbro headquarters, too many copiers in the building, and too many steps an item has to go through prior to production for that to necessarily be true.

None of this is to excuse the guy or even to say that what he did wasn't unethical as all get out. I just don't think it was illegal.

That being said....wouldn't it be cool if there was a (proper) way to get custom cards for classic vehicle drivers and mail in figures? I know people can technically draw their own, but they lack the punch that the "official" Hasbro art seemed to have.

[gaelinic]

Somewhere...(probably on HISSTANK)...Obiwanjacoby is screaming into his computer screen.....


I have dealt with Rick a lot, Shane is a good friend of mine in the hobby....and this was something I just wasn't sure about. I think it is a sweet image, and the cardback looks great, and I like to see people that express their enjoyment of GI joe through artwork, or computer skills, or a combination of the two.

I didn't think much of it at first when i saw it...

...but then i realized that I too own art and images that are one of a kind pieces, many that have never been seen publically, or represent items no one even know ever existed...And i realized how angry I would be if someone took an image I posted, especially if it was in an effort to "share" information with the community, and used it for their own gain. It would have been one thing to make it for himself, but another to sell it for a profit.

I like Rick and his products, he has really hooked me up in the past with decals and images for my customs, but this is a grey area that I can't agree with at all. We (people like Shane and myself) put a lot of work, and cash, into "collecting" our hobby the way we do. I really hate to say I think soemthing that looks this cool istn't right, but, it really isn't IMO.

Look, I get the fact that you want to preserve the distinction and exclusivity of your preproduction "one-of-a-kind" artwork." However, there seems to be a disconnect in your argument that it's okay to buy reproduction decals or artwork from someone with some techincal know-how but it's not okay if it's your artwork. Do you see that?

How many guys here, including perhaps the original poster, buy reproduction stuff just to make their collections feel more complete?

[rah-digga]

8,001 people are a member of our community. And our communty has standards of conduct, just like any other community.

I only meant that you can find him on the member list and PM him through yojoe as well. I wasn't trying to say anything more than that

[airedevon]

This can be a very complicated issue - and Shane. I understand where you are coming from!

As many here know, I have been working on a book for a few years... It is very heavily visual, and I am spending a lot of time getting the images right (at least I am trying :-)

I love sharing my stuff and I have emailed several pre-production pictures to friends, and even posted a few on restricted access websites...

However, sometimes I have been quite surprised upon finding my pictures in places I did not even know about (the images travel.. :-)

For instance, someone posted some of my pictures on a website I was not familar with- (But that, in the end, turned out to be a good thing - I found a great new community of collectors, and I subsequently joined that website, and retroactively gave the poster my permission)

http://actionmanhq.co.uk/forum/showt...6&page=1&pp=10

But in other cases (like when a guy in Europe making and selling posters of some collages of my images), I did not think it was a good idea, and asked the guys to stop.

I have found my images in Japan, in Venezuela, in Brazil, etc... Images, once in cyberspace really do get around :-) It is a hard lesson learned...

My publisher (and other publishing consultants) have all told me: NO DON'T POST (or email) ANY IMAGES AT ALL!!! Once in cyberspace, everything apparently gets sticky as far as ownership etc.. and I could cause problems for myself in the future...

At the minimum, I have been told to copyright the images and the copyright should be clear at the bottom of the picture (Shane, if you want, email me and I can tell you more about that)

There is software that can help protect images... and is pretty effective for most internet users.. (Photography buffs use such software as a matter of course).

I have made my peace with all this - and against my nature, I have curbed my image sharing... (at least until after the book is released) :-) Then...it will be full speed ahead once more! (I LOVE sharing this stuff!!!! And, Shane I am sure you do,too - I wish it could all be simpler...) YoJoe!!!!!

Aire

[rah-digga]

Look, I get the fact that you want to preserve the distinction and exclusivity of your preproduction "one-of-aking" artwork." However, there seems to be a disconnect in your argument that it's okay to buy reproduction decals or artwork from someone with some techincal know-how but it's not okay if it's your artwork. Do you see that?

How many guys here, including perhaps the original poster, buy reproduction stuff just to make their collections feel more complete?

This argument carries a lot of weight.