Hotshot;155977
What do you want from me dude?

I would prefer for you to not be associated with selling props anymore, I do not feel you can be trusted after all that went down on GBFans and Proptopia. You may have guarenteed a better quality end-product because you're using a printer rather than doing it yourself, but I don't feel you can be trusted with paper props, either. I'm sure the current owner of the OMNI magazine prop wasn't pleased in the slightest to hear you were planning to produce a print run of copies of the magazine.

What exactly am I being accused of here?

And talking about the cover brings me to the accusations I'm levying against you:

That you didn't bother to seek permission from, or inform, khunter of the fact you were using a modified photo he'd taken in your print run.

That in answer to being accused of using a image taken from Flickr, you outright lied in stating that the Vigo prints had been developed from a photograph from a RPF member - a lie compounded by remarks you made in this topic which showed the original source image, and the chain of posts and posted images in the original RPF topic.


I also submit that your explanation for the creation of the Vigo prints cannot be trusted, due firstly to your prior actions on the above mentioned forums, the two major accusations i've made against you, and the conflicting accounts concerning your getting in contact with the man who printed the run.

Because your info seems less about correction/explanation and more about general harrassment.

Getting the correct info out there would be one of at least two goals. The second would be to proove there's reason to enforce a your entry onto a blacklist from this this's Marketplace, as I do not view it as being in this forum's best interests to allow you to sell props.

I see no reason to defend myself, and while it's clear that some of my info is correct and some isn't, I can only stand by what I've been told.

I feel that your lack of interest in defending yourself shows that I may very well correct in at least one or more of my assumptions. additionally, I really don't believe you when you say you're only typing what you've been told. Considering how you've taken the reigns of the project, I find it unlikely you would have ignorance in the areas you'll no doubt claim to be ignorant or misinformed in.

You were present in the topic pretty much from the start, the flickr image was clearly linked within the first few pages, without any remark that any of the RPF members had taken it.

I would love to see som photogrpahy backing up the history of the painting, as I'm more than ready to take anything I hear with a grain of salt.

You're seriously questioning Glen Eytchison's account of the ‘painting’s history? I hardly think you're in a position to question his integrity.

I believe his account, if not for anything else but the fact he provided this production artwork for what would be the final Vigo piece:



The above piece hasn't been made public before (there are members of GBFans and Proptopia who would've known about it if it had). He is hoping to upload more of the production material at a later date.

The one thing I will take issue with is the continued statment that I'm selling these at a profit.

In this topic, haven't accused you of profiteering (I read the RPF topic, so I know that the costs here are in line with those over there*). One of my posts had a remark from AJ saying you were profiting, but that was his comment, not mine.

*It doesn't mean that you couldn't inflate the price both there and here, but that's an accusation I'm not making in this topic.

**shakes head**

Kingpin;155985
I would prefer for you to not be associated with selling props anymore, I do not feel you can be trusted after all that went down on GBFans and Proptopia. You may have guarenteed a better quality end-product because you're using a printer rather than doing it yourself, but I don't feel you can be trusted with paper props, either. I'm sure the current owner of the OMNI magazine prop wasn't pleased in the slightest to hear you were planning to produce a print run of copies of the magazine.

Yes, that much is obvious. But it's been asked SEVERAL times by Chad for you to let the past go. This is the third or fourth time you've brought it up, and I think I have to now ask for some sort of sanction or infraction against you.
At what point was a ‘guarantee’ even implied? And how else would these be made, painted by hand? I know it must be hard to find things to prop your argument up with.
And the paper props reference is inappropriate, and inaccurate, at best. It has nothing to do with this board, and since you're an outsider, I think you should move along on that topic. There was no action taken against me nor at anytime did I act inappropriate. My only regret is that the owner of the prop never had the class to contact me directly. Seems to happen alot lately. I'll ask that you not bring it up again.

Kingpin;155985
That you didn't bother to seek permission from, or inform, khunter of the fact you were using a modified photo he'd taken in your print run.

That in answer to being accused of using a image taken from Flickr, you outright lied in stating that the Vigo prints had been developed from a photograph from a RPF member - a lie compounded by remarks you made in this topic which showed the original source image, and the chain of posts and posted images in the original RPF topic.

While this may be a valid point, at what point did I take the image and change it. I had simply assumed that the person who provded it was the guy who took it, as several folks posted in that thread their own pics. Theres a big difference between an assumption and a lie. Again, this seems to be nothing more than an attempt to discredit me. Since I wasn't the guy creating the image digitally, I think you'll need to hop out of you comfort zone and take it up wiht the RPF memebrs that did the digital work. If this ‘khunter’ wants us to not use the image, what should I do, issue refunds and take back all those prints? Ridiculous . . .
Personally, I'd love to see what responses you'd get if you actually took this issue up on the RPF, where it belongs.
Either way, my run fell well within and exceded rules set out in the COC on the RPF. Again, someone with you're disdain for the RPF most likely dosen't care about that.

Kingpin;155985
I also submit that your explanation for the creation of the Vigo prints cannot be trusted, due firstly to your prior actions on the above mentioned forums, the two major accusations i've made against you, and the conflicting accounts concerning your getting in contact with the man who printed the run.

Again, you mention my past actions on the two forums. And you make a semantic argument about how I contacted the printer? Grasp those straws mate. How the printer was contracted is none of your buisenss, and wether a simple story about it is true or simplfied, is a ridiculous thing to holler ‘witch’ over.

Kingpin;155985
Getting the correct info out there would be one of at least two goals. The second would be to proove there's reason to enforce a your entry onto a blacklist from this this's Marketplace, as I do not view it as being in this forum's best interests to allow you to sell props.

I'll agree wiht the first thing wholeheartedly. The correct info is the idea, but my info here, while falling in line with yours, allbeit less technical, was meant more as trivia, and not set in stone fact. I was simply repeating what's been posted on other websites, as well as on Rymar's site, and my conversations with him.
The second issue is not your issue to decide. I was invited here to do precisly that, and you and others have gone out of your way to disrupt and dillude any attemts to get these replicas into fans hands. The other forums I participate in are very touchy about things like that. Here, I feel the game's a bit rigged.

Kingpin;155985
I feel that your lack of interest in defending yourself shows that I may very well correct in at least one or more of my assumptions. additionally, I really don't believe you when you say you're only typing what you've been told. Considering how you've taken the reigns of the project, I find it unlikely you would have ignorance in the areas you'll no doubt claim to be ignorant or misinformed in.

My lack of interest stems from simply being sick and tired of being chased around the forum by you, and bad mouthed on others without the abilty to defend myself. I offer the prints, and you dive on me with my past. It's swept aside by Chad, and you go quite. Then the game of ‘copyrigth holder’ starts, in the exact manner it took place on the RPF, then that's resolved (mind you, this wasn't during a run of Vigo's but of the new Muses prints). Now that you didn't get a win on those, you attack with all that's left, technical details, semantics, and credibilty. I've gotta say, that falls well into harassment. Frankly, I'm unimpressed and unafraid.

You could have easily, politly, and constructivly posted the full story of the prop painting, without making this personal. You're even willing to disregard warnings from the owner of the site as to attacking me armed with my past. Frankly, as a Mod, you set a poor example.

Kingpin;155985
You were present in the topic pretty much from the start, the flickr image was clearly linked within the first few pages, without any remark that any of the RPF members had taken it.

Sigh . . .nothing but straws and window dressing here. At this point, I think you're just spitballing.

Kingpin;155985
You're seriously questioning Glen Eytchison's account of the ‘painting’s history? I hardly think you're in a position to question his integrity.

I believe his account, if not for anything else but the fact he provided this production artwork for what would be the final Vigo piece:


The above piece hasn't been made public before (there are members of GBFans and Proptopia who would've known about it if it had). He is hoping to upload more of the production material at a later date.

It's not that I don't beleive him, it's just that it seems that I should learn from my current experience and take it one little bit at a time. I'm glad you beleive him, and the pic is great, and very cool, but we'll see as more stuff is posted. I personally am excited.
Oh, I do find it hilarious that you're posting an image that isn't yours, from a company that has granted you the access, but it's marked GBFans. Nice Double Standard . . .guess I can keep putting Hobby Farm on my pics. **rollseyes**

Kingpin;155985
In this topic, haven't accused you of profiteering (I read the RPF topic, so I know that the costs here are in line with those over there*). One of my posts had a remark from AJ saying you were profiting, but that was his comment, not mine.

*It doesn't mean that you couldn't inflate the price both there and here, but that's an accusation I'm not making in this topic.

We are all very aware how tight you an AJ are. I take anything he's said, and then posted by you, as something you support. The simple fact is these runs have been at cost, and that's that. And no matter how small you make the print, an accusation is and accusation.

Simply put, Kingpin has gone out of his way, along with AJ and others to make my time here neary unbearable. I encourage anyone reading to take this to heart. Chad was kind enough to invite me here, and my work and time on other forums has been very successful, and my ties with the prop community as a whole are strong, enjoyable and fun. I've been fortunate to get to do a few special things, and have access to many things that none of us have seen. I truly beleive I have something to offer the GB community, and will continue to be unafraid of people like Kingpin and AJ, who only participate to chase, harass, and annoy people that have a capicity to accomplish the things they can't.

I'm sure I'll have to continue to have this fight wiht people like this, but for now, I've said enough, and am moving on to my next project.

I'd just like to point out the difference between an assumption and a lie is in the mens rea of the actor.

The reasonable prudent seller would take due care not to act negligently or recklessly, you sir have acted with reckless abandon in regard to contacting owners of images.

The fact that you crossed this line and will not even acknowledge that you could have made a mistake implies one of two things: A) You have no regard for copyright holders or B) You simply do not care.

I'm not sure which is true - in my experience I side with caution.

Reckless abandon?
The only responsibility I have is to gain permission of the digitaly manipulated image. That was granted.

To assume that every prop collector/builder must gain permission from the copyright holder is rediculous and uninformed. Should we ask for Raytheon's and Clippard's permission too?

If we're talking about copyright of the image (photo at ILM) used to create the print artwork, the image was posted freely and publicly, making the entire arguemant mute.

Simply put, I'm not responsible for the use of that image, only the use of the print art.

Continuing to use it as the focal point of th argement is just plain silly.
Are you going to ask Chad if he has permission to use characters and scenes as art on the forum? Or if AJ has permission to sell photos using actors faces?

We all walk in that grey area, be it seller or collector. So either let it go, or start thinking about your own actions in this hobby.

I should also note, that in the effort to remain open to dealing with this, even though this is really ticking me off, I've sent out emails and PM's to the owner of the pics, and those who helped make the print art file.
That way, everyone involved is “in the know”. Once I hear back from them, I'll make a decision on what I should or should not do, but for now, I am most certainly not backing down.

Hotshot;155997
Reckless abandon?
The only responsibility I have is to gain permission of the digitaly manipulated image. That was granted.

To assume that every prop collector/builder must gain permission from the copyright holder is rediculous and uninformed. Should we ask for Raytheon's and Clippard's permission too?

If we're talking about copyright of the image (photo at ILM) used to create the print artwork, the image was posted freely and publicly, making the entire arguemant mute.

Simply put, I'm not responsible for the use of that image, only the use of the print art.

Continuing to use it as the focal point of th argement is just plain silly.
Are you going to ask Chad if he has permission to use characters and scenes as art on the forum? Or if AJ has permission to sell photos using actors faces?

We all walk in that grey area, be it seller or collector. So either let it go, or start thinking about your own actions in this hobby.

I'll think about my own actions in this hobby . . . ok, done. Now you tell me at which point I infringed upon a copyright, or violated someone else's rights? Your strawman argument fails.

It's not my duty or job to ensure that you understand fully the laws that govern property and intellectual property - if you wish to, I can advise some good case books.

Your response ignores, almost in the entirety, my response. I hate to be one to merely rain on your parade, but ignorance is never an acceptable escape for liability. I would very much like one of these prints; but your failure to admit your past faults and your continued reliance on skirting the issue and pleading ignorance does nothing but make me disinterested.

They look nice, but I have a conscience.

Also, please don't interpret this post as one from a Mod - but I do suggest you simply edit your posts in the future rather than double posting.

**shakes head**

Hotshot;155993
At what point was a ‘guarantee’ even implied?

By the simple fact that unlike your resin parts, which suffered greatly from poor curing, the prints were being done by someone with enough experience to ensure they wouldn't have any significant production flaws.

It has nothing to do with this board

It has everything to do with it if it's a statement towards your character, or what you're willing to do, which would be info worth making public to the members of this forum you hope to sell the prints to.

There was no action taken against me nor at anytime did I act inappropriate.

The topic dedicated to the OMNI run was closed, and as I presume regular RPF members can't lock topics, I'm led to the conclusion it was closed by a Moderator (a conclusion supported by a remark by Greg Justis that a mod locked it). You may not have had wrist publically slapped, but the decision to not do the run through the RPF was made for you.

It's especially worth mentioning, because that scan you were planning to use had been made by Greg, and I'm sure he mentioned it more than once in the emails he sent to you, the requests he made in them which you ignored.

My only regret is that the owner of the prop never had the class to contact me directly. Seems to happen alot lately. I'll ask that you not bring it up again.

He shouldn't have to. You should have had the decency to talk things out with Greg, and see if you could ask the seller himself.

While this may be a valid point, at what point did I take the image and change it.

I didn't say you changed it, I said you used it without consulting the guy who'd photographed it.

I had simply assumed that the person who provded it was the guy who took it

And you never thought to check? Sloppy work, Rhett. If you'd sold something stolen, and pleaded ignorance of it being stolen, I believe that in the letter of the law you could still be charged with accepting and selling stolen goods.

Theres a big difference between an assumption and a lie.

You stated something as the truth, and it was not truthful. Some would say that's a lie. But putting that aside, you still should have checked, especialled when someone was linking straight from a online photo gallery which, if you'd viewed, had a username that was nothing like the guy who first posted about the Vigo shot.

Since I wasn't the guy creating the image digitally, I think you'll need to hop out of you comfort zone and take it up wiht the RPF memebrs

You're the figurehead of this print run, Rhett. Don't go blaming the volunteers in this project for you not doing the leg work in the research. You decided to go with the photo AZspidey and others had cleaned up, even in light of a RPF member actually posting a photo that you could've used (not to be confused with the supposed RPF member you claimed in earlier forum correspondence).

If this ‘khunter’ wants us to not use the image, what should I do, issue refunds and take back all those prints?

I'd recommend not producing any more print runs… or maybe at least contact the guy, who knows, maybe if you asked him nicely he'd let you continue to print them.

the COC on the RPF.

My disdain is based around the fact that even in light of the RPF's rules and codes of conduct, blacklisted sellers and recasters have been known to still post freely over there, in light of information being passed onto the Admin staff of the Replica Prop Forum.

And you make a semantic argument about how I contacted the printer? Grasp those straws mate.

Maybe, but it still struck me as extremely weird that you would vary the detail so greatly.

and not set in stone fact.

Alright, you can't just back out of your remark that what you said above was meant to be the stone-cold facts about how this project came about, with a new remark that ‘it’s all trivia'. If you'd wanted to post trivia, you shouldn't have started with saying that you were ‘publically posting the facts about the process, people and origins of (this) prop’. People shouldn't have to assume what you're posting are the ‘edited highlights’ if you've said they're the facts.

And you're right, the second issue isn't mine alone to decide, but I never said it was mine alone to decide.

My lack of interest stems from simply being sick and tired of being chased around the forum by you, and bad mouthed on others without the abilty to defend myself.

You more than certainly have the ability to defend yourself.

I offer the prints, and you dive on me with my past.

“If we ignore the past, we're doomed to repeat it.”

It's swept aside by Chad, and you go quite.

I went quiet to look into it in more detail before I brought it up again, Glen posting his account was one of the things I was waiting for.

You could have easily, politly, and constructivly posted the full story of the prop painting

I imagine it's quite hard to politely accuse someone of some sort of theft or misconduct. However I felt I was constructive as I did the visual anaylsis, not to mention when I laid down my charges at your request.

As for the warnings for Chad, I'll discuss those with him should he wish to.

Sigh . . .nothing but straws and window dressing here. At this point, I think you're just spitballing.

You pleading ignorance is hardly a convincing argument, either.

Oh, I do find it hilarious that you're posting an image that isn't yours

Let's see. 1) The image was sent to AJ by Glen, and has been made public. Glen has since posted in a topic where it was featured, and has not made any remark or request about taking things down. He has been kept well informed by AJ.

2) AJ watermarked it (and scaled it down), not me… and he did so to prevent people from:

since I don't want people printing them out and trying to sell them

-Jokes aside, I can also easily see it being watermarked so that Glen is still left with the ability to post the unwatermarked version, if he so wishes.

3: AJ isn't selling it in the GBFans shop

If you wish to talk about double standards in regards to the concept piece, please, do drop AJ a line.

The simple fact is these runs have been at cost, and that's that.

So you've been repeating ad nauseum, and as I told you that in the most recent posts I haven't been concentrating on the price.

Chad was kind enough to invite me here

Based on what you've told him, the accuracy of which is anyone's guess.

and annoy people that have a capicity to accomplish the things they can't.

Very cute, but I'm sad to say this isn't print envy.

So this is what's it's like argueing with Glen Beck . . .

I've recevied emails back from the origanl owner of the image, as well as from AZSpidey who's digital art image was used and Howlrunner who posted the image. Rollerboi's unreachable, as he's just had a baby, nd will porbably take some time to get back to me.

AZSpidey and Howlrunner believe as I do, that the arguement of getting permission to use a public domain image is pretty ridiculous.

I received an email from the owner of the image today, via her email on her blog. She has no probelm wiht the image being used, but advises me to watch my back if I'm making money.

She's also asked that any mention of her name or screenname be removed.
I'll be forwarding the email to Chad, and at this point, I expect an apology from Kingpin.

His constant targeting of me seems to be more and more off the topic at hand, and his arguements are weak to the point that I'm no longer interested in taking the time to compete.
Thanks.