New Funko Batman 66 4 inch action figure line

[LordMudd]

I think they may have got stuck too. Her image was used without her consent on a Trek trading card. Apparently the company thought Paramount's blessing meant they could, then they got sued. The Trek trading card market dried up shortly thereafter. Paramount may have had to make nice to get out of an ugly PR situation, and keeping those things quiet was standard back then. She is dead and Paramount might as well be because they will never talk about it, so we will never know for sure if...


CCC.

[enyawd72]

I've never understood why actors seem to think they should be continuously paid for work they did years ago. I'm not. You're not. Most people aren't. And most people aren't paid even close to what actors make anyway. If I went to my boss and said, hey, you're still profiting from work I did ten years ago. I want some more money...he'd laugh. Then probably fire me.

[Teemu]

I've never understood why actors seem to think they should be continuously paid for work they did years ago. I'm not. You're not. Most people aren't. And most people aren't paid even close to what actors make anyway. If I went to my boss and said, hey, you're still profiting from work I did ten years ago. I want some more money...he'd laugh. Then probably fire me.

You don't think giving your likeness away so action figures and dolls can be made later on doesn't deserve some kind of compensation?

Working for somebody and giving away your likeness are separate issues and perhaps not in the contract when she worked. Likenesses do need to be licensed

[palitoy]

I've never understood why actors seem to think they should be continuously paid for work they did years ago. I'm not. You're not. Most people aren't. And most people aren't paid even close to what actors make anyway. If I went to my boss and said, hey, you're still profiting from work I did ten years ago. I want some more money...he'd laugh. Then probably fire me.

One, artists are paid handsomely for their work that's true but it's feast or famine. I also highly doubt 1960s television made anybody wealthy for the rest of their lives, they all had to find work.

Merchandise and re-runs can actually hurt your chances of finding more work, if you want to casting agents to forget you were Batman, it's hard if the world is covered with merchandise of you in a cape.

Also, why should a corporation profit from anybody's likeness in perpetuity?

[enyawd72]

You don't think giving your likeness away so action figures and dolls can be made later on doesn't deserve some kind of compensation?

Working for somebody and giving away your likeness are separate issues and perhaps not in the contract when she worked. Likenesses do need to be licensed

I disagree. If they didn't, we'd all have many more toys based on the movies and TV shows we love.

[enyawd72]

Also, why should a corporation profit from anybody's likeness in perpetuity?

Because they own the movie/show. An actor gets paid to play a character. It's a performance. Once completed the studio owns the final product and the actors should have no claims after the fact. It's not even a fair system anyway. For example...Anthony Daniels as C-3PO. He IS that character, but no one needs his permission to make C-3PO toys because you can't see his face? How is that fair? His contribution to Star Wars is every bit as important as say, Harrison Ford. What about Yoda? Should Frank Oz get a percentage of everything? He performed the movements and the voice...I just think it's all a bunch of BS. The only people that profit off it IMO are the lawyers who come up with all this stuff.

[Teemu]

I disagree. If they didn't, we'd all have many more toys based on the movies and TV shows we love.

Sounds selfish

[palitoy]

Because they own the movie/show. An actor gets paid to play a character. It's a performance. Once completed the studio owns the final product and the actors should have no claims after the fact. It's not even a fair system anyway. For example...Anthony Daniels as C-3PO. He IS that character, but no one needs his permission to make C-3PO toys because you can't see his face? How is that fair? His contribution to Star Wars is every bit as important as say, Harrison Ford. What about Yoda? Should Frank Oz get a percentage of everything? He performed the movements and the voice...I just think it's all a bunch of BS. The only people that profit off it IMO are the lawyers who come up with all this stuff.

Big deal they own the property, without the actor the role wouldn't have been so special or endearing to the audience. They're not just meat puppets.

Pretty sure Anthony Daniels has done just swell on royalities over the years, they use his voice in many products and I doubt he'd be a fan of your notions.

I'm sorry you're not getting every toy you wanted but what you're defending is called exploitation.

[enyawd72]

I'm sorry you're not getting every toy you wanted but what you're defending is called exploitation.

I know for a fact I'm not the only person who's ever posted here about wanting a figure that hasn't been made because of likeness issues.

[thunderbolt]

I know for a fact I'm not the only person who's ever posted here about wanting a figure that hasn't been made because of likeness issues.

with modern stuff the likeness rights are factored in contracts, For old stuff like Universal Monsters or Batman it had to be worked out with heirs. I am not a follower of legal proceedings, but I would guess this all has legal precedent somewhere. Now studios just have enough sense to go and work out the rights before even doing any merchandising for properties. Its why EMCE's Dracula looked nothing like Lugosi. FTC could produce a generic looking Gordon for the Batman line if they wanted to, it just can't look like Neil Hamilton. Probably why you don't see a lot of Jack Nicholson Joker stuff either, pricetag's too steep for most.

[palitoy]

I know for a fact I'm not the only person who's ever posted here about wanting a figure that hasn't been made because of likeness issues.

Oh sure that's not even something i'm debating but I think you're the only one I've ever heard say screw the artist who played the character so you can get your toys.

[enyawd72]

Oh sure that's not even something i'm debating but I think you're the only one I've ever heard say screw the artist who played the character so you can get your toys.

Please show me where I said screw the artist. That's not what I said at all. What I said was I don't feel actors need to be continually paid for work they did years ago. I'm not, and I make a hell of a lot less money than somebody who gets paid millions to play dress up. Yvonne Craig's net worth was 5 million in 2014. That's more than I'll ever make in five lifetimes. Did she really need another dime every time somebody wanted to make a Batgirl figure? NO. She wore a costume for one season...THIRTEEN HOURS, on a show 50 years ago. I know the guy who sculpted the Batgirl statue for Tweeterhead, and he literally spent more hours sculpting her than she did playing her.

That's my opinion, whether you agree with it or not, and it's not gonna change.

On a side note...since you feel so strongly about actors and their families being cheated out of royalties, how does that make you feel about Distinctive Dummies, who always get rave compliments here for their unlicensed figures?
And before you say they're customs...no, they're not. They do full (albeit small) production runs with printed card backs and sell them. Illegally I might add.

Anyone who has ever bought an unlicensed figure, or any type of bootleg DVD, or downloaded free music off the internet has said "screw the artist". I'm willing to bet you've done at least one of those things.

[palitoy]

Please show me where I said screw the artist. That's not what I said at all. What I said was I don't feel actors need to be continually paid for work they did years ago. I'm not, and I make a hell of a lot less money than somebody who gets paid millions to play dress up. Yvonne Craig's net worth was 5 million in 2014. That's more than I'll ever make in five lifetimes. Did she really need another dime every time somebody wanted to make a Batgirl figure? NO. She wore a costume for one season...THIRTEEN HOURS, on a show 50 years ago. I know the guy who sculpted the Batgirl statue for Tweeterhead, and he literally spent more hours sculpting her than she did playing her.

I redact the implication that you said screw the artist when you conjecture that Craig and others deserve nothing from companies who have no prearranged agreement with them for trading in materials based on their likeness. Those are my words describing the scenario, not yours.

It doesn't matter if Craig was rich or poor that's irrelevent (she earned most of her money working hard in the Real Estate game BTW, one season of Batman didn't garner much money or re-run royalties), she deserved compensation for her trading on her likeness. It doesn't matter if she made more than you or me in her life, we don't decide boundaries like that. Begrudging what successful people make is not something that will get any of us anywhere, it's actually bad for you.

That's my opinion, whether you agree with it or not, and it's not gonna change.

That's fine, I know better than to try and change people's minds. I'm not going after you personally, merely your statement that actors don't deserve royalties. I think that's wrong and I'm respectfully disagreeing with you.

People are allowed to politely challenge statements here, that's not going to change and I think that's reasonable, don't you?

On a side note...since you feel so strongly about actors and their families being cheated out of royalties, how does that make you feel about Distinctive Dummies, who always get rave compliments here for their unlicensed figures?
And before you say they're customs...no, they're not. They do full (albeit small) production runs with printed card backs and sell them. Illegally I might add.

I was expecting that. Yeah, it's skirting the law with 50-75 run of hand made figures. The majority of their subjects are a) so niche that licensors won't touch them or b) a nightmare to figure out the license (see Hammer films). I gleefully admit it's a little black market fan service I enjoy but I also would purchase licensed products if I could, if any brave soul made officially licensed Paul Naschy dolls I'd buy every single one tomorrow. DD has actually worked with estates when they can, there are officially licensed DD pieces, I'm trying to hash one out right now.

They're essentially garage kits, which I also have imbibed, heck I sculpted one in a former life.

You are correct that on paper it's the same thing, you have to consider the magnitude of the scale. Certain actors likeness are worth millions to the brand itself, cutting them in for a piece is just. Paramount and WB are billion dollar corporations with mission statements, a code of ethics and a slew of lawyers. They can't trade on actors likeness without express written consent and that is fair.

[Werewolf]

I also grew up with the Batman 66 re-runs in syndication and Batgirl was my favorite character. I'm happy they were able to work out the likeness rights. But if the hadn't, I would have preferred a 66 Batgirl with a generic likeness or not one at all than one made at the expense of the actress who brought her to life.

[enyawd72]

I redact the implication that you said screw the artist when you conjecture that Craig and others deserve nothing from companies who have no prearranged agreement with them for trading in materials based on their likeness. Those are my words describing the scenario, not yours.

It doesn't matter if Craig was rich or poor that's irrelevent (she earned most of her money working hard in the Real Estate game BTW, one season of Batman didn't garner much money or re-run royalties), she deserved compensation for her trading on her likeness. It doesn't matter if she made more than you or me in her life, we don't decide boundaries like that. Begrudging what successful people make is not something that will get any of us anywhere, it's actually bad for you.




That's fine, I know better than to try and change people's minds. I'm not going after you personally, merely your statement that actors don't deserve royalties. I think that's wrong and I'm respectfully disagreeing with you.

People are allowed to politely challenge statements here, that's not going to change and I think that's reasonable, don't you?



I was expecting that. Yeah, it's skirting the law with 50-75 run of hand made figures. The majority of their subjects are a) so niche that licensors won't touch them or b) a nightmare to figure out the license (see Hammer films). I gleefully admit it's a little black market fan service I enjoy but I also would purchase licensed products if I could, if any brave soul made officially licensed Paul Naschy dolls I'd buy every single one tomorrow. DD has actually worked with estates when they can, there are officially licensed DD pieces, I'm trying to hash one out right now.

They're essentially garage kits, which I also have imbibed, heck I sculpted one in a former life.

You are correct that on paper it's the same thing, you have to consider the magnitude of the scale. Certain actors likeness are worth millions to the brand itself, cutting them in for a piece is just. Paramount and WB are billion dollar corporations with mission statements, a code of ethics and a slew of lawyers. They can't trade on actors likeness without express written consent and that is fair.

Fair enough. I actually agree with you in some cases where the actor was taken advantage of at the time. Bela Lugosi and Lou Ferrigno both come to mind. Both were cheated during their original contracts because of a language barrier and inexperience dealing with studio lawyers. Bela Lugosi was just about the lowest paid actor in Dracula. His salary was a quarter of David Manners. In the case of Yvonne Craig, she made a great deal more on Batman than Burt Ward, which is wrong IMO. He was far more important to the show than she was and already had two seasons under his belt.