T
Tommy Allison
Guest
The piece is actually done, with the skin. Haven't decided on hair or anything else, as I gravitated towards a progerian aesthetic.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
Tommy Allison said:
Ooh, when do we get to see the 'skinned' version?
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
I'm still cobbling a video together of the musculature and skinning.
It's taking a little more time because I'm in the middle of 3 projects.
It's taking a little more time because I'm in the middle of 3 projects.
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
Here are some pics.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
A face only a mother could love.
Cool pic. One problem though Tommy. You made it green. We don't like little green men jokes here.
Cool pic. One problem though Tommy. You made it green. We don't like little green men jokes here.
CapnG
Devil's Advocate
That's excellent work Tommy, although based on the width of the nasal area I would have thought the actual nose should have been bigger.
Now, here's a problem: are you purposefully trying to make it seem inhuman by your choices of colour and texture? Take that same image, make it less "slimy", give it ordinary skin tones and brown eyes and a short hair do and you see someone who is merely deformed. Conversly, take the same image, reduce it to a greyscale, remove the ears and make the eyes all black. Yikes! It's all very subjective.
Now, here's a problem: are you purposefully trying to make it seem inhuman by your choices of colour and texture? Take that same image, make it less "slimy", give it ordinary skin tones and brown eyes and a short hair do and you see someone who is merely deformed. Conversly, take the same image, reduce it to a greyscale, remove the ears and make the eyes all black. Yikes! It's all very subjective.
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
Hey all.
My work is no longer to be associated with Lloyd Pye's Starchild.
He and I had a little falling out. So, this is not to be considered the Starchild Forensic Reconstruction. I could tell you all the story about how things went south, but... I'm probably going to write a book about it. HAHAHAHAHHA
Seriously though, There will be posters, prints, and castings of the end result made available for anyone who wants to buy them, so I can recoup my losses on this bit of jackassery.
Thanks for all the kind words though.
Tommy
My work is no longer to be associated with Lloyd Pye's Starchild.
He and I had a little falling out. So, this is not to be considered the Starchild Forensic Reconstruction. I could tell you all the story about how things went south, but... I'm probably going to write a book about it. HAHAHAHAHHA
Seriously though, There will be posters, prints, and castings of the end result made available for anyone who wants to buy them, so I can recoup my losses on this bit of jackassery.
Thanks for all the kind words though.
Tommy
Mogwa
Skilled Investigator
Tommy, I'm sorry to hear that you and Lloyd have parted company on less than amicable terms. For whatever my opinion is worth, I think you did an admirable job with an extremely difficult task.
Lloyd has included some of my illustrations in his upcoming book. While they are far from perfect, my purpose was to give an accurate impression a distorted but still recognizably human face. I'm currently attempting to create a more forensically accurate model, but it's slow going.
Lloyd has included some of my illustrations in his upcoming book. While they are far from perfect, my purpose was to give an accurate impression a distorted but still recognizably human face. I'm currently attempting to create a more forensically accurate model, but it's slow going.
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
Mogwa,
Please understand that things are far worse than "less than amicable". I will actively pursue legal action against anyone who uses my work as source material for "The Starchild", in ANY form.
If you're affiliated with Mr. Pye, I would suggest you retain a lawyer. I certainly hope you've been paid for your work.
I myself did this work for free, because I wanted to make sure that there was credibility to the work, so that I could say with all honesty and integrity there was no bias, or lack of objectivity due to money being involved.
My parting of ways with Mr. Pye, and his consortium came about as a result of my contacting my attorney.
This event brought another issue or two to light that I wasn't aware of, and when I found out what had transpired without my knowledge, that was the outright end of things.
With that said, I hope you have a good relationship with Mr. Pye, and that your work looks sufficiently "Alien" Enough.
Tommy Allison
Please understand that things are far worse than "less than amicable". I will actively pursue legal action against anyone who uses my work as source material for "The Starchild", in ANY form.
If you're affiliated with Mr. Pye, I would suggest you retain a lawyer. I certainly hope you've been paid for your work.
I myself did this work for free, because I wanted to make sure that there was credibility to the work, so that I could say with all honesty and integrity there was no bias, or lack of objectivity due to money being involved.
My parting of ways with Mr. Pye, and his consortium came about as a result of my contacting my attorney.
This event brought another issue or two to light that I wasn't aware of, and when I found out what had transpired without my knowledge, that was the outright end of things.
With that said, I hope you have a good relationship with Mr. Pye, and that your work looks sufficiently "Alien" Enough.
Tommy Allison
Rick Deckard
Paranormal Maven
What an odd ending to this little saga...
I suppose the main problem with these types of reconstructions is the choosing of the skin type/colour, the eye shape/colour and the hair.
My understanding about dinosaur 'reconstructions' is that they have no physical evidence of skin colours - they have made an educated guess for all dinosaur skin colours; T-Rex could have been pink with blue spots for all we know...
...which leads me to the my main point - how did you decide on the skin, hair and eye characteristics?
Oh and do we know where the rest of the skeleton is and whether or not there is anything 'remarkable' about it?
I suppose the main problem with these types of reconstructions is the choosing of the skin type/colour, the eye shape/colour and the hair.
My understanding about dinosaur 'reconstructions' is that they have no physical evidence of skin colours - they have made an educated guess for all dinosaur skin colours; T-Rex could have been pink with blue spots for all we know...
...which leads me to the my main point - how did you decide on the skin, hair and eye characteristics?
Oh and do we know where the rest of the skeleton is and whether or not there is anything 'remarkable' about it?
Mogwa
Skilled Investigator
I agree, Rick. While it's possible to draw upon data bases of physical characteristics when attempting to reconstruct a model from the remains of a contemporary organism, recreating an accurate likeness of any extinct species is as much guesswork as it is science once you progress beyond simple skeletal structure.
A few examples of fossilized dinosaur skin have been discovered, but no one has a clue what the pigmentation might have looked like. Now that so many paleontologists endorse the warm blooded/avian connection between dinosaurs and birds, artists conceptions have radically changed. Sometimes to ridiculous extremes.
Same holds true for our supposed ancient ancestors that fell out of the family tree. When I was a kid, Neanderthals were always graphically portrayed as brutish creatures that might have been copied from a Frank Frazetta illustration. These days they look like uncle Erwin.
I'm not sure the Neanderthals would approve.
A few examples of fossilized dinosaur skin have been discovered, but no one has a clue what the pigmentation might have looked like. Now that so many paleontologists endorse the warm blooded/avian connection between dinosaurs and birds, artists conceptions have radically changed. Sometimes to ridiculous extremes.
Same holds true for our supposed ancient ancestors that fell out of the family tree. When I was a kid, Neanderthals were always graphically portrayed as brutish creatures that might have been copied from a Frank Frazetta illustration. These days they look like uncle Erwin.
I'm not sure the Neanderthals would approve.
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
The skintone came about because of the material I worked with. Apoxie Sculpt from batch to batch dries shades of the same color. In this case, it turned an olive color.
The eyes, I didn't want to make it look like an Alien, because that would have been simply too obvious. The typical alien gray, whatever. If there was an alien to be sculpted, I could have saved myself a grand in production and simply just made an alien.
The other stuff was based on forensic templates, meso american physiology, and the fact that there was NOTHING really substantial to work from.
Then again, I believe it to be a progerian child who was cradle boarded, nothing more.
The eyes, I didn't want to make it look like an Alien, because that would have been simply too obvious. The typical alien gray, whatever. If there was an alien to be sculpted, I could have saved myself a grand in production and simply just made an alien.
The other stuff was based on forensic templates, meso american physiology, and the fact that there was NOTHING really substantial to work from.
Then again, I believe it to be a progerian child who was cradle boarded, nothing more.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
I found this interesting.
http://www.lloydpye.com/A-StarDebate.htm
"Following is a critical letter about the Starchild skull written by Bari Hooper of Essex, England, to the editors of Fortean Times, a magazine published in London. In November 1999, Fortean Times ran a story by Max McCoy regarding my efforts to determine the truth about the Starchild. Mr. Hooper took exception with some of the points made in the story, while offering insights of his own. Below is his letter in its entirety, followed by my response. "
http://www.lloydpye.com/A-StarDebate.htm
"Following is a critical letter about the Starchild skull written by Bari Hooper of Essex, England, to the editors of Fortean Times, a magazine published in London. In November 1999, Fortean Times ran a story by Max McCoy regarding my efforts to determine the truth about the Starchild. Mr. Hooper took exception with some of the points made in the story, while offering insights of his own. Below is his letter in its entirety, followed by my response. "
Your work is really intriguing, Tommy, and of benefit to us all.
I did have some questions of your.. Motivations.
When you were "commissioned" to perform this task, Pye offered to pay you for your work, which you declined based on the claim that payment would cloud the issue and you were only concerned about getting the job done and the truth out there. You could have licensed Pye to use your work, or asked for compensation and in effect sold him the work, rather than giving it to him for free.
It is beyond question that you should be compensated for your time and effort, but why then did your compensation become an issue when Pye began making money with your work? Is this Naivety or did you believe it wouldn't come of anything, and now change your mind saying "hey, I CAN make some money with that!".
Basically you've completely done a 180 on the topic of compensation and your work with the aberrant skull. You were offered compensation, you refused, and now you want to go back and find some way of making a buck.
You were right in the beginning. The world deserved an honest assessment of the skull and you are talented enough to do that. However, from my point of view, if you wanted to profit from your work, you should have established the parameters of compensation from the start of the project, not "chasing after" your own work. There are many people who hold ill feelings of Pye, and I am by no means a fan of his work or his avarice.
When a programmer writes software under contract, that software is then owned by entity who commissioned its authorship, and this is a fairly close situation. You just chose not to be compensated for it. Intellectual property is just that... and you gave it away
. You can't go back to the company you "wrote software" for and say hey, I get to use that program too because I want to make money for it too! It's theirs! They bought it! In your case they just bought it for $0.00.
This will unfortunately be an issue for the lawyers, and is tragic for both of you. I just wish you would have stood by your own morals and held fast to "I am in this for the science, and the truth." Not for the buck.
I did have some questions of your.. Motivations.
When you were "commissioned" to perform this task, Pye offered to pay you for your work, which you declined based on the claim that payment would cloud the issue and you were only concerned about getting the job done and the truth out there. You could have licensed Pye to use your work, or asked for compensation and in effect sold him the work, rather than giving it to him for free.
It is beyond question that you should be compensated for your time and effort, but why then did your compensation become an issue when Pye began making money with your work? Is this Naivety or did you believe it wouldn't come of anything, and now change your mind saying "hey, I CAN make some money with that!".
Basically you've completely done a 180 on the topic of compensation and your work with the aberrant skull. You were offered compensation, you refused, and now you want to go back and find some way of making a buck.
You were right in the beginning. The world deserved an honest assessment of the skull and you are talented enough to do that. However, from my point of view, if you wanted to profit from your work, you should have established the parameters of compensation from the start of the project, not "chasing after" your own work. There are many people who hold ill feelings of Pye, and I am by no means a fan of his work or his avarice.
When a programmer writes software under contract, that software is then owned by entity who commissioned its authorship, and this is a fairly close situation. You just chose not to be compensated for it. Intellectual property is just that... and you gave it away
. You can't go back to the company you "wrote software" for and say hey, I get to use that program too because I want to make money for it too! It's theirs! They bought it! In your case they just bought it for $0.00.This will unfortunately be an issue for the lawyers, and is tragic for both of you. I just wish you would have stood by your own morals and held fast to "I am in this for the science, and the truth." Not for the buck.
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
To Mike PC
It seems you're looking to stir up some controversy. Your impression is incorrect, and what you know of things is only superficial.
Um... No. You see, Lloyd never offered me ANY compensation. Where the hell did you get that idea? I'm the one who approached LLoyd to do the work in the first place. I offered to do the work for free.
There wasn't to be any pay day for me for doing the work, Lloyd never offered me a dime of compensation, PERIOD. I stated that from the word go, and the reason why I would have refused any compensation, is because it would have biased me. So, where you got this idea that I changed my mind, is beyond me. I did not set out to create a product to make money from, I wanted to create a forensic reconstruction. That was the only goal I had when I started this project.
Merchandise came later after having a flood of e-mails asking for castings, t-shirts, and the like. Funny that this sort of thing could be profitable.
Lloyd was using my images. He was going to use them in his book. He sent them around to a lot of people. UFO Magazine was going to run my work as their cover for Lloyd's story. Which of course I knew nothing about until I got my nose in a twist at Lloyd's demand for money. So, then UFO Magazine would have been making money off of my work, which although flattered, would have been another slap in the face, because again they would have been using my work for free, and I'd still be PAYING TO USE MY OWN ART.
By virtue of what is called reciprocity, there should never have been an issue of people demanding money for a licensing fee, because I'd done all this work, and they were using my art for free. Not to mention the fact that I was going to be giving them a bunch of merchandise to sell in order to generate more money for them. Merchandise that would have probably made them more money, than a licensing agreement. Everything I had done for Lloyd was public, and up front.
I don't understand your tone, but if you're looking to start something with me, you need to realize that I haven't backtracked, or changed my mind about anything. Just because I did a sculpt for free, doesn't mean that I don't have the right to profit from it in some regard. I am allowed to do that, make a living you know, not to mention would have happily entered into an agreement, had they not already been using my work for free. The issue isn't about my making money. It's about having to pay someone else to use my own work, which they were using for free.
I hope that clarifies things for you.
It seems you're looking to stir up some controversy. Your impression is incorrect, and what you know of things is only superficial.
Um... No. You see, Lloyd never offered me ANY compensation. Where the hell did you get that idea? I'm the one who approached LLoyd to do the work in the first place. I offered to do the work for free.
There wasn't to be any pay day for me for doing the work, Lloyd never offered me a dime of compensation, PERIOD. I stated that from the word go, and the reason why I would have refused any compensation, is because it would have biased me. So, where you got this idea that I changed my mind, is beyond me. I did not set out to create a product to make money from, I wanted to create a forensic reconstruction. That was the only goal I had when I started this project.
Merchandise came later after having a flood of e-mails asking for castings, t-shirts, and the like. Funny that this sort of thing could be profitable.
Lloyd was using my images. He was going to use them in his book. He sent them around to a lot of people. UFO Magazine was going to run my work as their cover for Lloyd's story. Which of course I knew nothing about until I got my nose in a twist at Lloyd's demand for money. So, then UFO Magazine would have been making money off of my work, which although flattered, would have been another slap in the face, because again they would have been using my work for free, and I'd still be PAYING TO USE MY OWN ART.
By virtue of what is called reciprocity, there should never have been an issue of people demanding money for a licensing fee, because I'd done all this work, and they were using my art for free. Not to mention the fact that I was going to be giving them a bunch of merchandise to sell in order to generate more money for them. Merchandise that would have probably made them more money, than a licensing agreement. Everything I had done for Lloyd was public, and up front.
I don't understand your tone, but if you're looking to start something with me, you need to realize that I haven't backtracked, or changed my mind about anything. Just because I did a sculpt for free, doesn't mean that I don't have the right to profit from it in some regard. I am allowed to do that, make a living you know, not to mention would have happily entered into an agreement, had they not already been using my work for free. The issue isn't about my making money. It's about having to pay someone else to use my own work, which they were using for free.
I hope that clarifies things for you.
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
mikepc said:Your work is really intriguing, Tommy, and of benefit to us all.
I did have some questions of your.. Motivations.
When you were "commissioned" to perform this task, Pye offered to pay you for your work, which you declined based on the claim that payment would cloud the issue and you were only concerned about getting the job done and the truth out there. You could have licensed Pye to use your work, or asked for compensation and in effect sold him the work, rather than giving it to him for free.
This is incorrect. Lloyd didn't "Commission" me at all. There was no payment. This statment is totally fraudulent. I approached Lloyd to do the sculpt for free. There was no talk of compensation from him, as it would have biased me. If you want to talk about licensing, then yes, Lloyd should have paid me for the fair use of my work. He didn't. He had no intention of paying me anything. In fact, he wanted me to buy a copy of his book.
It is beyond question that you should be compensated for your time and effort, but why then did your compensation become an issue when Pye began making money with your work? Is this Naivety or did you believe it wouldn't come of anything, and now change your mind saying "hey, I CAN make some money with that!".
Basically you've completely done a 180 on the topic of compensation and your work with the aberrant skull. You were offered compensation, you refused, and now you want to go back and find some way of making a buck.
Again, your notion of compensation is fraudulent. I was never offered ANY compensation by Lloyd or anyone else for that matter.
You were right in the beginning. The world deserved an honest assessment of the skull and you are talented enough to do that. However, from my point of view, if you wanted to profit from your work, you should have established the parameters of compensation from the start of the project, not "chasing after" your own work. There are many people who hold ill feelings of Pye, and I am by no means a fan of his work or his avarice.
The issue of profiting from my work wasn't something I intended to do. It was after being flooded with e-mails about producing product from my work that put the idea in my head. I mentioned this to Lloyd that I would happily give them some stuff to sell in order to generate revenues for their testing and what not. Would I make a lot of money on the deal, No. Because I'd be doing all the production, and would be bearing all the costs of such. I sincerely doubt I'd profit it at all.
When a programmer writes software under contract, that software is then owned by entity who commissioned its authorship, and this is a fairly close situation. You just chose not to be compensated for it. Intellectual property is just that... and you gave it away
They never bought anything. They never offered any money. I offered to do the work. When they started shopping my art around, and put it in their book, and were using my art all over the place where money would be made, there should never have been an issue of me wanting to make money for myself. If they can be in it for a buck, then I should be allowed to do the same thing. Seeing as how your analogy is again totally fraudulent, I shouldn't even be responding to it.
This will unfortunately be an issue for the lawyers, and is tragic for both of you. I just wish you would have stood by your own morals and held fast to "I am in this for the science, and the truth." Not for the buck.
My own morals? Let me put it to you this way Mike. My morals aren't in question here. I did my part, and held up my end of the bargain. I did the work for free, and was happy to let them use it for free. The issue here is I shouldn't have to pay to use my own art, if someone else is using it for free, especially when they never paid me for anything, or offered me anything. I hope I've sufficiently clarified this matter for you, and removed your ignorance.
Men Around Screen
Paranormal Novice
Just to make my opinion known, I think this little saga has become incredibly ridiculous and not even funny. On the one hand there is Pye staunchly defending the possibility the skull has non-human origins and looking to profit from it, and on the other, everybody else trying trying to discredit and ridicule the man. I didn't see what the point of the second Starchild paracast was. While I think abusive emails are uncalled for, there was a certain avoidance in the paracast about telling what was communicated to Pye to warrant his remarks as told.
While I don't think Pye's approach is very scientific, I don't accept criticisms of his work by casual listeners and readers of his rhetoric either. In one of the discussions Pye I think referred to the lack of crust underneath the oceans. Even on his page on wikipedia he is countered that there is crust beaneath the oceans. However, I think his point is that oceanic crust in most places is basaltic and relatively new. The Atlantic is expanding all the time with the formation of new crust, whereas continental crust is much, much older and of different composition and consistency.
And also in reference to Tom Allison. Are you trying to make money out of this now, because that's what it sounds like. While I think Pye has some right in using your work provided you give permission and he gives you credit for it (but not to generate money) I think you can't make money out of this as the starchild skull on which your cast is based is not licensed to you. I didn't catch whether you had any prior agreementswith him but if you didn't, your case has very little water to hold.
While I don't think Pye's approach is very scientific, I don't accept criticisms of his work by casual listeners and readers of his rhetoric either. In one of the discussions Pye I think referred to the lack of crust underneath the oceans. Even on his page on wikipedia he is countered that there is crust beaneath the oceans. However, I think his point is that oceanic crust in most places is basaltic and relatively new. The Atlantic is expanding all the time with the formation of new crust, whereas continental crust is much, much older and of different composition and consistency.
And also in reference to Tom Allison. Are you trying to make money out of this now, because that's what it sounds like. While I think Pye has some right in using your work provided you give permission and he gives you credit for it (but not to generate money) I think you can't make money out of this as the starchild skull on which your cast is based is not licensed to you. I didn't catch whether you had any prior agreementswith him but if you didn't, your case has very little water to hold.
T
Tommy Allison
Guest
And also in reference to Tom Allison. Are you trying to make money out of this now, because that's what it sounds like. While I think Pye has some right in using your work provided you give permission and he gives you credit for it (but not to generate money) I think you can't make money out of this as the starchild skull on which your cast is based is not licensed to you. I didn't catch whether you had any prior agreementswith him but if you didn't, your case has very little water to hold.
I'm not trying to make any money off of this thing. In fact, I have yet to see a dime from ANYTHING having to do with this little fiasco.
Here's the thing about what happened with Lloyd, and since you're obviously incapable of understanding the complexities of the law, I'll clarify things yet again for you.
Lloyd took my images, and used them in conjunction with his work. I had no problems with it UNTIL... He demanded that I pay a royalty to the owners of the skull (Ray And Melanie Young), when they were using my work for free, FOR PROFIT. Since Lloyd was putting them in his book, WHICH HE WAS SELLING, FOR PROFIT... By reciprocity, I should be allowed to do the same thing, and CONSIDERING I WAS GIVING THESE PEOPLE ART TO SELL ON TOP OF ALL THE FREE CRAP I DID FOR THEM, I should be free to USE MY OWN ART WHICH I CREATED. I could have just as easily NOT used a casting of their skull, considering they just wanted an alien anyway, it wouldn't have mattered.
UFO MAGAZINE was going to run my art without my knowledge until I got my lawyer involved. Lloyd never bothered to tell me what was going on, and it was only by the fact that I submitted a portfolio to Nancy's subordinate that she made the connection, and contacted me to get an agreement signed. An agreement I was willing to make, even though Lloyd had already lied and libeled me to the owners of the skull. An agreement which would have made money for the magazine, and of course, helped Lloyd promote his book.
When he sent his final insult to me, that's when I told Nancy it simply wasn't going to work, and she decided to go another route with the cover. Lloyd made absolutely sure that I'd be angry enough to call Nancy.
There's no way in hell I was going to let ANYONE affiliated with Lloyd Pye use my work, in conjunction with his, AFTER BEING LIBELED YET AGAIN.
How simple is it to understand? Well, you see, it takes a serious turn when Lloyd LIBELS ME IN AN E-MAIL, IN ORDER TO DISCREDIT ME, MY WORK, AND TO COVER HIS ASS.
So for the month I spent doing research, the reconstruction, tons of promotion for Lloyd, it all goes to hell because he wants me to pay a royalty to people who had nothing to do with the art, while they themselves were using my work FOR PROFIT, Without an agreement, or without any kind of payment to me. How am I the bad guy again for wanting to recoup money for my time and effort when it was totally wasted on someone who libeled me, and used me?
You weren't there, You weren't involved, You weren't Lied about, you weren't Libeled, and you certainly weren't USED LIKE I WAS.
Even after all that bull****, I did NOT rail on Lloyd's work, nor did I rail on Lloyd's book, because like so many other people, I'd really like to see this thing pan out for him, regardless of what happened between he and I.
Just so you understand, if I wanted to recoup what I would have charged Mr. Pye and company, ($11,000.00) I'd be hocking all kinds of crap, but to date, I have sold nothing. Not that there isn't a demand for it, I simply tell people it's unavailable.
I have nothing but contempt for Lloyd Pye, and the people who surround him. I do however have respect for the work, and the possibility that it could turn out great. When it does, I'll be happy for him. I've been very a supporter of the work, just have a very ****ty taste in my mouth after being treated as poorly as I was after I did the work.
I'm not trying to make any money off of this thing. In fact, I have yet to see a dime from ANYTHING having to do with this little fiasco.
Here's the thing about what happened with Lloyd, and since you're obviously incapable of understanding the complexities of the law, I'll clarify things yet again for you.
Lloyd took my images, and used them in conjunction with his work. I had no problems with it UNTIL... He demanded that I pay a royalty to the owners of the skull (Ray And Melanie Young), when they were using my work for free, FOR PROFIT. Since Lloyd was putting them in his book, WHICH HE WAS SELLING, FOR PROFIT... By reciprocity, I should be allowed to do the same thing, and CONSIDERING I WAS GIVING THESE PEOPLE ART TO SELL ON TOP OF ALL THE FREE CRAP I DID FOR THEM, I should be free to USE MY OWN ART WHICH I CREATED. I could have just as easily NOT used a casting of their skull, considering they just wanted an alien anyway, it wouldn't have mattered.
UFO MAGAZINE was going to run my art without my knowledge until I got my lawyer involved. Lloyd never bothered to tell me what was going on, and it was only by the fact that I submitted a portfolio to Nancy's subordinate that she made the connection, and contacted me to get an agreement signed. An agreement I was willing to make, even though Lloyd had already lied and libeled me to the owners of the skull. An agreement which would have made money for the magazine, and of course, helped Lloyd promote his book.
When he sent his final insult to me, that's when I told Nancy it simply wasn't going to work, and she decided to go another route with the cover. Lloyd made absolutely sure that I'd be angry enough to call Nancy.
There's no way in hell I was going to let ANYONE affiliated with Lloyd Pye use my work, in conjunction with his, AFTER BEING LIBELED YET AGAIN.
How simple is it to understand? Well, you see, it takes a serious turn when Lloyd LIBELS ME IN AN E-MAIL, IN ORDER TO DISCREDIT ME, MY WORK, AND TO COVER HIS ASS.
So for the month I spent doing research, the reconstruction, tons of promotion for Lloyd, it all goes to hell because he wants me to pay a royalty to people who had nothing to do with the art, while they themselves were using my work FOR PROFIT, Without an agreement, or without any kind of payment to me. How am I the bad guy again for wanting to recoup money for my time and effort when it was totally wasted on someone who libeled me, and used me?
You weren't there, You weren't involved, You weren't Lied about, you weren't Libeled, and you certainly weren't USED LIKE I WAS.
Even after all that bull****, I did NOT rail on Lloyd's work, nor did I rail on Lloyd's book, because like so many other people, I'd really like to see this thing pan out for him, regardless of what happened between he and I.
Just so you understand, if I wanted to recoup what I would have charged Mr. Pye and company, ($11,000.00) I'd be hocking all kinds of crap, but to date, I have sold nothing. Not that there isn't a demand for it, I simply tell people it's unavailable.
I have nothing but contempt for Lloyd Pye, and the people who surround him. I do however have respect for the work, and the possibility that it could turn out great. When it does, I'll be happy for him. I've been very a supporter of the work, just have a very ****ty taste in my mouth after being treated as poorly as I was after I did the work.