Advice: Purchasing fixer upper head

[kotacub.livejournal.com]

Hello there lovelies!

I've found myself in a bit of a sticky situation, and I'm looking for opinions on what the best source of action would be at this point.

So, recently a friend of mine decided they were selling a fursuit head of theirs. Since the character itself is a very beloved one of theirs, they wanted the head to go to someone they trusted. They offered it to me for quite cheap just to ensure it goes to a good home

However, the head itself has some problems
The fur on the muzzle is shedding badly. It has bald spots and needs to be replaced yesterday. The lining in the head was removed due to the fact that it was actually a quilted lining and was trapping heat inside the head. The shaving also needs some touch ups, and several pins were found inside the head after my friend recieved it

It also needs to be changed from her character (who is fairly well known) to a more neutral one

Now, I'm a fursuit maker myself, and making these changes would be abysmally easy for me. However, the original maker does not like other people tuching there work in any way, shape, or form, and makes their customers sign a contract stating they will only return to them for repairs. They also make anyone who purchases any costumes secondhand sign the same form.

The current owner of the head and the maker had a falling out and no longer speak. And Based on the issues above, I don't particularly want to pay to send the head back to them, especially if I can make the fixes on my own

Is attempting to purchase/deal with the situation surrounding this head worth my time, in your opinion?

Comments

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

I guess my first question is: How much do you care about the fit the original maker will make if they figure out you did the changes?

[magedragonfire.livejournal.com]

Pretty much.

[kotacub.livejournal.com]

I don't /particularly/ care
And I know if they decided to attempt to pursue legal action for whatever reason, they wouldn't have a case

Mostly I'm just worried about them attempting to drag my own business into this, since I do costume stuff for a living. Because I don't know /what/ they'd try to pull

[gatekat.livejournal.com]

If they're that much of a freak about allowing anyone else touching their work, they will drag everything in. I doubt it would be legal action, but it could well damage your business socially.

It could involve assaulting you if they recognize the suit and know they didn't make the changes in person.

On the other hand, they might have more they've pissed off than those who like them, which means their ranting might do little harm to you.

Personally, I wouldn't bother since you haven't paid for it yet and it's easy to avoid the drama. But that's my level of drama-tolerance based on "I have the skills to make what I want". Yours may vary and in the end it's your reputation, business and hide on the line.

[kriwu.livejournal.com]

I agree with not bothering, if you're actually worried about the rep you may get, especially from someone you're sure will backlash, why do it? Especially if they have a business that overlaps yours - their followers will see you as someone who disregards others works and wishes. There's a large potential loss there.

[kotacub.livejournal.com]

The only reason I was considering it was because I really do like the head
The base work on it wasn't bad at all, and I think it does have a lot of potential, especially when I'd be getting it for less than $100

It just needs a bit of work to get it wearable again, and it's something that I could do in about a day

That does make a lot of sense though

[kriwu.livejournal.com]

I completely understand that. There's definitely no harm in contacting the original artist and explaining the situation, the worst they can say is no!

[sableantelope.livejournal.com]

I would just do the work. Don't enable or humour this person's delusions about how they can control their product's end use. They want to make money by selling a product they can play by the same rules as anyone else selling a product.

They might be able to enforce a first sale type of clause in their contracts but beyond that they'd be hard pressed to get their terms declared reasonable and enforceable even in small claims.

If they want to try with this kind of BS post-sale rules they can try getting a properly written terms of use done up as part of a written and signed/e-signed contract but still, good luck actually collecting any damages or winning a case if they try and sue for breach of those.


Do the work, wear the head, don't give in to people who want to profit from running a business but act like it's not like a business.

[dergish.livejournal.com]

If I buy a blender I own the blender. I can put stickers on the blender, I can refuse to wash the blender, I can throw the blender away. If I try to fix my blender instead of sending it to the manufacturer the manufacturer can refuse to help me when I mess up but they can't stop me from trying because it's my blender.

Unlike digital art, a fursuit (or blender) is a tangible good. When you own it you own it. If you want to fix up a fursuit you buy go ahead because it is your fursuit.

Is is worth your time though? Even if you are in the right the fallout might not be worth your time. You'd have to decide.

[kotacub.livejournal.com]

That makes a lot of sense, thank you very much!

[spartanwerewolf.livejournal.com]

Yes, this exactly. The only thing opening your blender yourself is gonna do is void your warranty. There's nothing the manufacturer can do to you, though.

Same thing with fursuits, the only thing a maker can do is say it voids the warranty on said suit. All the screaming shit fits in the world won't change that.

[totschrei.livejournal.com]

Is it a possibility to contact the original maker and explain the situation?
They might allow it. You never know.

[jellyfishee.livejournal.com]

I don't think the maker can enforce that at all. If you own it, it's yours. The only way for them to have a "don't touch it" contract would be if you were just renting it from them, I assume. I have never once heard of anything like that.

[greenreaper.livejournal.com]

This is basically the first-sale doctrine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine) applied to fursuits - or more generally, a post-sale constraint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-sale_restraint) - and one with a clear anti-competitive effect. I don't see it holding up in court.

Artists (and manufacturers) often desire to control the secondary market for their work, and this may be quite reasonable when it's a matter of "making copies", but less so where there "can only ever be one" (which in my view includes "adoptables" as well as work fixed in tangible form). If they want to retain control over such works, they need to not sell them in the first place.

Regardless of enforcability, I'd not want to buy from someone seeking to restrain the ability to repair my own fursuit. You wouldn't accept that from someone who sold you a TV set; why a suit?

[growly.livejournal.com]

You weren't the original client, you didn't sign any contract- you can do whatever you wish with your property. If the original artist gets in a tizzy over it, I'd say just ignore them.