Star Trek Mego and Dida Scans

[palitoy]

If a person creates a piece of artwork, which is what a Dida scan is, and then sells it to another person, that person may then do whatever he wants with it, even though upon it's creation it was an intellectual property. That person can scan it, copy it, hang it, fold it, cut it, resell it, shred it, burn it, or leave it out on the side of the road until mother nature reclaims it, as happened with the hand-painted billboard my mother create for Rosewood Funeral Home many years ago. She was a professional artist, but once she sold that work to them, she no longer had any say in what was done with it. If someone on here has a Dida Trek scan they are willing to share with the author of this thread, they are free to do so because they paid for it and they own it. Furthermore, if they do not profit from the act, it is virtually impossible to successfully prosecute them for it.

You have a very poor understanding of work for hire vs buying a copy of someone's work.

The purchaser is free to do what they want with the physical item, except copy it and distribute it for free, that isn't included in the price.

[generic]

If a person creates a piece of artwork, which is what a Dida scan is, and then sells it to another person, that person may then do whatever he wants with it, even though upon it's creation it was an intellectual property. That person can scan it, copy it, hang it, fold it, cut it, resell it, shred it, burn it, or leave it out on the side of the road until mother nature reclaims it, as happened with the hand-painted billboard my mother create for Rosewood Funeral Home many years ago. She was a professional artist, but once she sold that work to them, she no longer had any say in what was done with it. If someone on here has a Dida Trek scan they are willing to share with the author of this thread, they are free to do so because they paid for it and they own it. Furthermore, if they do not profit from the act, it is virtually impossible to successfully prosecute them for it.

You are correct that it's virtually impossible to successfully prosecute them for it (sale or no sale). But when it comes to distributing the file to others who have not paid for it, that would only apply if the purchaser bought all of the rights to the art, not if they were one of many people to purchase a copy of the art for personal use. It's like if you buy a copy of Photoshop, you don't have the right to copy it and give it to a friend. If you buy a print from an artist, you don't have the right to scan it and print more copies for distribution.

I'm really not trying to bring any negativity here and I'm trying to be careful with my phrasing so that I don't sound like a jerk. I would just like to correct a common misconception (which has been hitting me very directly in the wallet over the last decade+). Ever since file sharing on songs via the internet, these laws have become much more relevant and much more misunderstood.

[Capt_Kirk]

I don't mean to start anything here, but just for the sake of clearing up misinformation, your statement is not correct...unless you mean that if someone sells the ownership of the copyrights or trademark, the new owner can do what they want with it. If someone just purchases one of an item, they do not have any rights to copy and distribute it. A similar comparison would be that if you buy an album or DVD, you can not legally burn all the copies you want or upload all the songs online to distribute yourself. Despite the fact that people do this constantly to the financial detriment of the creators, it is not legal or moral.

Just because someone "can" do whatever they want to with it. Doesn't make it right. I have many friends that are artist. They spend many hours sculpting, painting, drawing and researching projects to create a very nice "whatever" Lets use a Mego figure head as an example.
Mego Member 1 spends a lot of time and talent to sculpt a custom Janice Rand head that is spot on. He paints it and sells it on eBay for 25.00. Then the purchaser takes that same head and recasts it and sells it to make a profit for himself. It happens all the time but, it's wrong. "Do unto others" I would not be happy if someone were out there making copies of my Mego sculpts to profit.
Just my 2 cents y'all

[jacoblb]

Unless I'm mistaken the founder of the MM is also the talented artist who created the Dida Displays and artwork and obviously doesn't wish to distribute it for free otherwise there would be a download link for anybody to use. And I suppose the idea of monetizing a paid-for digital download has already been addressed with (the answer being) not having one available.

Even if someone scanned a copy of theirs and posted it in the reply, the image would not be shared for long because a MM moderator would immediately delete it and, I imagine if it ever got to that point, the whole thread would (rightly) disappear too.

[ODBJBG]

I never understood why Dida didn't offer for pay downloads of their art for some of the sets. It was great stuff, but I rarely had the room or cash for the actual Dida Displays, but would have bought the heck out of some of the artwork. I always figured they didn't do that because it would cause people to not buy the Dida Displays themselves, but once Dida stopped making displays, I thought it would have been a good way to make some extra dough. But I guess Scott felt different. Can't begrudge him that, but some of the artwork on those sets was stellar.

[Liu Bei]

Unless I'm mistaken the founder of the MM is also the talented artist who created the Dida Displays and artwork and obviously doesn't wish to distribute it for free otherwise there would be a download link for anybody to use. And I suppose the idea of monetizing a paid-for digital download has already been addressed with (the answer being) not having one available.

Even if someone scanned a copy of theirs and posted it in the reply, the image would not be shared for long because a MM moderator would immediately delete it and, I imagine if it ever got to that point, the whole thread would (rightly) disappear too.

I'm not very clear on the history of Dida Displays. Did he/they pay for the rights to produce the Enterprise Bridge and to reproduce the artwork from Mego's Wayne Manor playset? I guess my working assumption was that this was all fan-produced material, not copyrighted material. If I am/was wrong, I apologize for asking for scans.

[palitoy]

It is all original artwork, not taken from any source and regardless of it's license or lack therefor of, it doesn't entitle anyone to copy it without consent.

The art was solely produced to sell the physical factory made sets that Robyn invested her money in, it belongs to her and only she can say whether or not they get distributed, especially on the website she created for pete's sake.

[Liu Bei]

It is all original artwork, not taken from any source and regardless of it's license or lack therefor of, it doesn't entitle anyone to copy it without consent.

The art was solely produced to sell the physical factory made sets that Robyn invested her money in, it belongs to her and only she can say whether or not they get distributed, especially on the website she created for pete's sake.

I understand your argument, but think it would be better made minus the emotion.

The arguments from both sides about copyrights and licenses was and continues to be a non-sequitur, unless of course Dida Displays paid for the rights to create artwork based on the Bridge as seen in Star Trek, or the Batcave/Wayne Manor, etc... If not, there is an argument to be made about copyright violations, but not one I think you'd like.

If people here aren't comfortable with the original poster asking for scans, it's understandable. I think a non-response would suffice. For this to descend into an argument about licenses, theft, and violations of intellectual property rights is useless. No one accused Dida Displays of this behavior, nor should members of this forum looking to use those images to make their own displays be accused of it either.

Yes, people who might be looking to use those images to make money are scum. But I don't think that should be the immediate assumption here. That's my two cents, and I will speak no more on the subject (assuming the thread isn't deleted outright).

[palitoy]

The reason I appear curt is this weird notion that my friends artwork is somehow shared ownership, it's not. It's hers to do with what she wants.

I'll work on my tact but folks should check their entitlement as well.

[toothaction]

So... the whole Dida thing happened during my years in the wilderness, as in that long period where I loved the toys of my youth but wasn't hanging out here or trying to rebuild my former army of cloth-clad plastic peoples. Would someone mind pointing me to proper coverage of all the sets that the nice lady mentioned put together? I'm only finding stray images so far. My Google Powers are puny, obviously.

Thanks!