And I think that sums up why I think hasbro will never let core star ever see the light of day.

 

What a world we live in to see two unicron projects get announced this year and potentially neither being greenlit.

 

Doesn't look like Hasbro should even bother with the collector market with how shittily Haslab Unicron crowdfunding has gone. It's obviously very small. If anything Hasbro shouldn't bother making toys to cater to older collectors and should go all in making toys for kids.

 

Not gonna happen. Hasbro may or not release theirs (but I imagine they still will once retailer orders come in)
But Zeta's will release. Even if Hasbro shut's it down from "Zeta", they'll release it under "ateZ" or "NotToyWOrld" or the like. Creating a new Brand takes about 5 minutes designing a new logo in photoshop. Keith has half a dozen different companies, Toyworld have a couple of identities, Dx9/UT... heck even Zeta themselves are less than a hop, skip and a jump from ToyWorld. It's pretty rare for a product to get this far along and then vanish completely, especially given the size of the product and the investment in design, moulds etc.

 

Or to put it another way...

 

Every career has a "paying your dues" phase. Lawyers start out at the bottom and work their way up. Plumbers apprentice iirc. Doctors have to do a residency. Basically you've got to start out at the bottom and prove your worth in order to move up. If it's more difficult for artists, then it's because the supply outstrips the demand. When you're starting out, exposure is worth more than the pittance people will pay for your work. That's not too say they shouldn't be paid, but they shouldn't expect to be able to make a living at it until they're established and have a reputation.

Why are you talking about it like you're giving away your art. You post it online for people to see and, sure, they can download it, but you still have it. It's still yours. It still serves the purpose that you created it for which is to advertise your abilities. You haven't given it away because it hasn't gone away.

The stuff you create for your patreon, you make available exclusively through that platform. Maybe put a lot res or heavily watermarked copy for people to preview so they can see what they'll get by supporting you.

I just don't get it. Unless you created the artwork for the purpose of being paid (meaning a commission or a patreon upload or as T-shirt) then I really can't comprehend why you'd be upset that somebody stole it to put on a toy package or a T-shirt or whatever. You weren't getting paid for that artwork anyway, so you've been deprived of nothing. If you're lucky, someone may even see your work and decide to look you up and maybe some business will come if it.

That's not too say that I condone the theft of art, especially when it's then being redistributed, but I can't say it bothers me all that much either. If my art were "stolen" (I use that word loosely because I never use watermarks and I upload at full resolution), I'd be flattered. Of course, in my case art is a hobby and I have no intention of trying to make a living at it - it's just way too damned much work with not nearly enough reward for my taste. My thinking is, if I wasn't going to try to sell a creation and it costs me nothing to share it, then why wouldn't I share it? As I said, my art is always full resolution and the few 3d creations I've done for 3d printing, I've freely shared (except the Charlene figure I made to go with Skids but that's just because I've been too lazy to fix a design flaw since I've already got my finished copy).

Also, I will say that I understand that my brain just seems to work differently on this issue and, as far as I can tell, I am simply not capable of understanding the pov of those who get upset by these things - people have tried to explain it to me and all I've ever gotten out of it is, "but it's mine!" I fully accept that I am vastly outnumbered and therefore probably wrong but I really can't see it. Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

I would have felt very inclined to buy both, if that was the case.

 

There's a difference between "paying your dues" and being expected to give away your work for free, which is what was suggested. Of course you can't demand top dollar if you're just starting out. But of you've taken the time and resources to create a work that someone else wants, you deserve to be recompensed for that time (including the time to develop your skills) and resources.

Because that's what was being suggested. "Artists should be like businessmen and give their art away for free"

Then why do games companies charge you to download their games?
Because you're getting something from them, which they put time and resources into, and they deserve to be recompensed that time and resources.

I'm glad you realise that.

Because the other person gains advantage (looking good, improving their reputation) from your work and they don't give you any credit for it. Plus, the fact you've used the word "stole" means it was without your consent.
Maybe you did have the intention of putting it on a T-Shirt yourself and selling them, thus creating an income stream. Maybe you just don't like people removing your watermarks and distributing your art without giving you any credit. Maybe you're just a jerk. You're still entitled to keep ownership of something you create until you decide otherwise.

If you're just doing it as a hobby, sure. If you're an artist who is trying to make some money out of their craft (even if you have another job because being an artist isn't very financially rewarding because people expect you to make your art available for free), then it's a completely different situation.

Yes, that's possible. But that's a lot of "maybes". And it's far more likely that no-one will look you up, or if they do come looking they'll expect the next piece for free also because "you need the exposure".

This is exactly my point!
There is already not enough reward, so the artist shouldn't have to forego further reward by giving their art away when people are actually interested.

You can, by all means. But artists who create art as more than a hobby shouldn't be forced to give it away - to work for free - just to "prove themselves". The proof is in the very art that they're being encouraged to give away: people want it, so it has value, so the artist has already "proven" themselves.

 

"Exposure" is bullshit people tell you because they dont want to pay you anything, its not the same as a lawyer or plumber having to "prove" themselves, because they are still going to be paid their fee for their work

 

Short answer: there is no reason to expect a reward. Like you say: it's a hobby. No matter how much work you put into it you do it for your own self-satisfaction. Feeling that you produced something that you are happy with is the only reward an artist should be looking for.
There should not be any other reward. Certainly not when most artists put so little effort into creating something that is worth existing
If most artists weren't such sick and self-congratulatory shits I would have another opinion on the matter, but your colleagues have given me no reason to view them with anything but contempt.
And no, I don't feel like having a discussion about it. But you can post derisive and mock-outrageous reactions as much as you want.
What I concede to you is that nobody should be allowed to use what you created to dustribute or to produce something else with it with the intent of monitary gain without your consent.
But all this whining from members of a cast of people that mostly produces exploitative trash and acts like they are the champions of public morals   or the voice of reason while they're as corrupt as established churches was bound to ellicit an appropriate reaction.

 

It’s a mistake. Provoking a major multimillion dollar corporation with an army of lawyers is always a mistake.

 

See, this is the sticking point for me and why this whole topic bugs me so much. It seems more that people are upset that somebody else is gaining benefit from their work than they are about any losses. Someone put my art on a T-shirt and they benefited. It should have been me that benefited. Well if I wanted that benefit, why didn't I put it on a T-shirt? Or shop it around to T-shirt companies. It just seems like pure jealousy - I did work and he got money. Well I was never getting money for that work anyway so why should I care that someone else did?

Your other points are well taken. If there were potential that you were going to try to market that particular artwork, then somebody stealing it would certainly be harmful by taking away future sales from you. I would still argue though, that if that were your intention, you should've published a low res or heavily watermarked version of the image rather than a clean high res version (though with A.I. assisted upscaling, the low res option might not be as effective as it once was).

Whoa now. I may be out of touch on this subject but you're way out there. If an artist works professionally, they should expect to be hired per their skill level and reputation and to sell existing works for a fair price (my argument is on images already freely distributed by uploading them without watermark onto the internet where there is no way to secure them).

And no, you can't drop a bomb like that and then play the "I don't want to have this discussion," card. What you're saying is, "I want to win this discussion without putting in any more effort." If you really didn't want the discussion, you wouldn't have said anything.

 

Well, thanks for posting an example of the types of people artists hate. You here are pretty much flipping me the bird with the "oh pfff, your work is worthless, you shouldn't expect anything". We make livings on this. And then you have the bright idea to say we put little effort into what we create. Holy shit are you a prime example of the people that we despise and wish would stay far from anything related to art, whether it be a discussion or buying. Time is money, many artists spend hours, weeks, or even months on making pieces, and in you come saying artists put no effort in and are self-congratulatory shits. You clearly have no clue what the industry is like and have no understanding of what it takes to be an artist as a career. But you then suddenly say "Don't want to discuss". No no, we are discussing this horrible view on peoples careers.

 

I have bought all of Zetas combiners that are on the market. I have said many times that Zeta is the top dog, champ, king of combiners, until another company can be added to the conversation. I would buy core star, and do not like that is going to be made to small. Core Star is a representation of Unicron. A few years from now when you have core star on display in your home, office, or wherever you display your stuff, you and your TF friends will not say or think, "hey that core star is excellent. No everyone will be saying and be thinking that this Unicron is too small." So if hasbro wants to keep its IP and not produce anything, and the corporate executives want to dance around naked in the boardroom singing The Touch, they can, Hasbro owns the property known as Transformers.

 

Wow! No wonder we some stores are out of stock...  

 

Maybe it’s coz I started in Model kit territory, but everyone I know prefers quality of engineering over sheer bulk of plastic any day of the week.

Yeah, he’s gonna look ridiculously undersized compared to metroplex I. My legends collection, BUT he also isn’t wearing the worlds laziest Bowser costume either.

Size is a trivial sacrifice for engineering perfection.

 

Originally, things like copyright law were created as a way to provide a period of time during which the artist could monetize their own work exclusively. Think of it as some breathing room so they don't have to rush to market immediately, and can do so at a more measured, reasonable pace, rather than having to race against someone who sits there waiting to monetize other people's art the moment it is published. As is often the case with things, the original intent has been lost and it has become a crutch to prevent anyone from ever monetizing things except the creator of those things, practically forever.

 

Or the company who bought the IP, or paid a creator to create the IP on their behalf. In those cases, the creators still get to die penniless, while the company reaps rewards until the end of time.

 

Now I can't think of anything else when I look at Haslab Unicron

 

Cheebs, we need a Bowser inspired digibash w/ Optimus Mario ( kinda already there) and Goomba Decipticons. Maybe Bumblebee as Toad?