Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Infreak wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Weeble1000: I was looking at it digging in Canadian law, it would be possible to push a case but very small odds of winning.

I do appreciate your common sense look at things but law does not always have much to do with common sense unfortunately.

He is copying the "heart of the works" the main information of "value" which is a point against.

It is for personal use and not for resale, too bad we do not have the "format" rules our fine Australian friends do to transfer an owned works to another format. He has evidence of the purchased work so it is a huge point in favor for him.

Funning thing though: "banning" is completely governed by "trespass" law so they can pretty much kick anyone out they like, so rule of law on copyright is moot (but I wanted to know!).

No lawyer here, but looking up the laws is always worthwhile!
Thanks all.

Direct from the Canadian Government website http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-19.html#h-28


Reproduction for Private Purposes

Marginal note:Reproduction for private purposes

29.22 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce a work or other subject-matter or any substantial part of a work or other subject-matter if

(a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy;

(b) the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced;

(c) the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented;

(d) the individual does not give the reproduction away; and

(e) the reproduction is used only for the individual’s private purposes.

Would say what the OP has done is fine or as Weeble has said, backing up anything you purchased would be infringement.

Intesting reprecussions in regards to recasting for your own army... Of course you cant sell them, but at first glance...definately sounds like you could cast up copies for your own army.

Ummm... you can, they even sell kit to do it.

From what I understand, casting copies of parts or models is something the wider modeling community has been doing for a long time, and none of the model companies really care that much. It's only an issue when GW is involved because they specifically have decided to try and milk money from people by forcing them to purchase multiple kits to get extra copies of desirable parts, like certain weapons that you only get one copy of per kit that you may need to outfit the entire squad with (Dark Eldar blasters were worth upwards of $8+ each on eBay for a while).

Noir wrote:
Ummm... you can, they even sell kit to do it.

 Col. Tartleton wrote:
Of course you could recast models for personal use.

Not so simply in the US (and a bit of a disagreement with Weeble on this one...at least as it would pertain to US copyright, though that was not the question - but you both have both have US flags, not Canadian as the OP had, so on a tangent we go).

Courts have found that the doctrine of first sale, wherein the holder of a copyright exhausts certain rights (as Weeble points out) doesn't apply to many common sense "backups" or personal use instances in the US. There are only three statutory exemptions that allow for legal copying of copyrighted works. One is for use in performance art (Title 17 Section 110). The second is for libraries who are allowed to make limited copies of larger works (Title 17 Section 106). The third is for computer programs (Title 17 Section 117) - the backup exemption. US copyright law doesn't actually have a backup exemption for individuals for general copyrighted works. You don't have the right to make copies of books, videos or even music. Cases like Mirage v ART Company have found that the derivative work created from legally secured works is a right held by the creator (chilling thought for people who sell painted miniatures...though all is not lost, a different court found differently in Lee v ART Company - so you have a 50/50 chance of not legally being able to sell a painted miniature...).

Now, for the specific question of personal cliff notes of the rules - you would likely be fine under Fair Use in the US. It passes all the criteria without too much difficulty. The larger copies for personal use as it might pertain to recasting would likely not pass though. Since they don't have a statutory exemption - it falls to the test of Fair Use (Title 17 Section 107). Are you selling it? No - Pass. The Nature of the Work? Individual figures sold for a profit - Leans towards failure IMO, but will call it a draw. The amount taken? All of it - Fail. Commercial Impact? Likely fail if you recast an armies worth - possible pass if you recast a single figure for the two weapon options. In balance, most recasting of miniatures in the US would not likely pass the fair use test, even if it is just for personal use. Recasting parts may pass with a de minimis defense, depending on the part.

 Sidstyler wrote:
From what I understand, casting copies of parts or models is something the wider modeling community has been doing for a long time, and none of the model companies really care that much. It's only an issue when GW is involved because they specifically have decided to try and milk money from people by forcing them to purchase multiple kits to get extra copies of desirable parts, like certain weapons that you only get one copy of per kit that you may need to outfit the entire squad with (Dark Eldar blasters were worth upwards of $8+ each on eBay for a while).

It is widely accepted (even promoted by some companies) but still isn't explicitly allowed. A few years back, in Tamiya's official magazine, they showed how to make a mold of a tank turret to recast it and modify it for battle damage. Other magazines like Fine Scale Modeler have shown how to recast parts for similar purpose as well without having companies like Dragon or Airfix attack them with threats of law suits and all those things which strike fear into forum operators regarding GW.

The issue of recasting though (and copyrights in general) varies so much from country to country. The cited statute should allow recasting in Canada. In the UK, it is likely that any GW design that is older than 10 years old can be legally recast due to the finding of Lucas v Ainsworth. In the US - well, it is pretty murky, but I do believe that it would not be allowed if pressed.

Trying to play lawyer is bad news on the internet. You run into situations like people saying you can create ROMs of video games you buy for your Gameboy, whereas law actually does NOT permit that.

We are not lawyers, lets stop pretending to be.

Depend where you live Troa. Just like format shifting is explicitly legal in Australia but not other nations, so can making ROMs be legal in one place but not another. You don't need to be a lawyer to do research to determine whether something might be legal or not in your country.

 troa wrote:


We are not lawyers, lets stop pretending to be.

Actually, at least two of the people commenting in this thread so far are.

NickOnwezen wrote:
There is a general rule in Games Workshop stores, not to allow people to play with photocopied codexes/rulebooks.

For the very obvious and totally understandable reason that you need to have a copy of your rulebook and codex to play in the games workshop store front.

Even for people who bought the codex at that store? That's really onerous and unreasonable. Nowadays, the codexes are the ridiculously thick, poorly organized monstrosities - carrying around 3 of them sucks, I much prefer my photocopied versions (which only include the unit entries, wargear and army list). Of course they don't want people using pirated versions, but hassling their actual paying customers is a good way to lose business.

I recall the rule at 'Ard Boyz tournaments that you needed to have the codex "somewhere", but you were fully allowed to have your own copied/organized/bindered version to play with.

Also, concurring with the other legal scholars here about copying reference works. It is generally recognized that you can make 1 reproduction copy of any purchased copyrighted work for use as backup or reference. Even if this is not explicitly the case any more, I can see a very good case for legal "fair use" laws in this regard, as it fits squarely into "educational and reference purposes." So long as you aren't infringing in any way on potential sales of the book in question, and you yourself have an original bought copy, its a pretty solid case.

You have to understand that Fair Use is NOT black and white, its shades of gray, but if you read fully any number of solid guides on the subject it should be pretty clear the intention.

Giving away copies to friends or selling photocopied rule sets would both be clear violations of the spirit of the fair use laws. Copying only the needed reference parts to compile into your own booklet for personal use only should pass muster. The aforementioned 'Ard Boyz rules thought this was just peachy, so long as they could verify you were a legal owner of the codex in question.

I can see a case for this applying to casted model copies. Cast away, so long as you limit yourself to a single copy of what you have purchased and you store the original away and don't use it. Making multiple copies (or using both the copy and original) DOES infringe on the profitability of the copyright holder.

 insaniak wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
The guys full of gak. Its not illegal to photocopy something for personal use. If it was, then I'd have been up to my eyeballs in fines for all the mountains of textbook photocopies I made when studying at Uni. It would be illegal to sell said copies, and maybe illegal to give copies away.

These things vary from country to country. In the UK, it is illegal to photocopy books for personal use. The only exception is 'small amounts' for research or educational purposes.

Here in Oz, it would be legal for me to scan a book I own in order to make a digital copy to have on my PC or tablet (format shifting) but illegal for me to just photocopy it in order to have a condensed print copy.

Is it in your criminal code or is it a civil matter?

If it's in your criminal code, is it enforced, or is it unenforced like one of those 19th century laws about not having a pig in your back yard on Tuesdays that no cop actually cares about?

If it's a civil matter, there's no proceedings unless there's standing. And often damages. If it's some gamer chump trying to control what you do, they have no standing as they're not the rights holder. And even if it's GW, there's no damages as you have the books right then and there.

In many cases "illegal" often means totally legal in all practical circumstances once you consider enforcement, damages and standing.

The real issue here is one of respecting your host. If it's a store and they ask you not to have photocopies for whatever reason, you're their guest and you should do what you can to be polite. If it's a club that's open to anyone and you're a member, tell them to relax and stop trying to control other people. If you are a guest at a club, then again, be polite to your hosts.

: Thanks for the info Sean. You're right, I was referencing the quoted Canadian statutory exemption, which is great, in my opinion. In Canada, it appears, you wouldn't get to a fair use argument.

PolecatEZ wrote:
I recall the rule at 'Ard Boyz tournaments that you needed to have the codex "somewhere", but you were fully allowed to have your own copied/organized/bindered version to play with.

That's fine - tournaments are a bit different, since you also want to maintain the veracity of your sources (it's not too difficult to edit a PDF in a subtle way to give you an advantage).

I have a digital Tyranid Codex that I adjusted the formatting and printed the rules from.

I tend to not use it in an actual GW store. A large part of the reason I like to copy books is GW's format sucks for quick referencing and I don't like flipping back and forth through my expensive books trying to reference stuff.

...so when in GW, I just use the store's open copies. When not in a GW I'll use my print outs.

I don't know the law but Personally I see nothing wrong as long as you own the books and have them with you when you play. It's a playing aid and frankly the guy is being an unreasonable jerk.

What about army lists? If you copy any stats onto a piece of paper then by his reasoning you are violating copyright, heaven forbid you use a program to do this. So call out anyone who wrote up an army list with unit stats, they must reference everything directly from the book!

What an absolutely stupid thing. Whenever I play a game like 40k I always bring with me some detailed typed/photocopied/hand-scribbled notes (in a binder too, usually) to help speed me up and remember all the rules. If someone told me I could only use the book, I'd tell them what a moron they are and leave.

I mean... you're buying the stuff and you're just copying information to be more efficient and a better person to play against. Someone who spends all their time flicking through the poorly-organized rulebook is just not a fun opponent.

Huh. With a (minimal) amount of digging into UK copyright law, fair dealing allows copying of one chapter or 5% of a book (which doesn't have to be contiguous). You aren't allowed to make a full copy, even if you're the author, without publisher's permission.

What is interesting is that GW's removal of author credits means that copyright expires 70 years from publication, rather than from last author's death. So they've shortened their copyright. This is, of course, still a really long time and hence useless to us!

This is dumb. I added up the money I spent on bad video games one year, and decided to never buy another one until I read a review, played a demo, AND liked The game. I do the same thing for music, movies, and tabletop games. If they don't have a free demo, I pirate it. If they made a good product, they get all of my money without hesitation.

Guess what? There are a lot of bad products out there that just want to milk your wallet. How is that acceptable?

I know it's a bit OT, but this stuff bugs me. Mr Manager just wanted to make sure OP wasn't torrenting or cheating, then realized he looked like an ass, so he stuck to it.

I sort of see the point of a rules saying 'no photocopies' in a GW store.

What with scanners being cheap PDFs of rulebooks and gaming supplements appear online almost as soon as books are released. There is nothing to stop someone printing out their newly acquired downloaded copy, binding it and then claiming it was their own made from a legal copy for personal use.

The manager was in the wrong to use the word 'illegal' but in principle there is nothing wrong saying you should only use original versions of codexs in their store.

Graphite wrote:
Huh. With a (minimal) amount of digging into UK copyright law, fair dealing allows copying of one chapter or 5% of a book (which doesn't have to be contiguous). You aren't allowed to make a full copy, even if you're the author, without publisher's permission.

This show how you can get it wrong by googling laws.

I'm not a lawyer, but I work in copyright and deal with specialist media lawyers frequently, and I can tell you for certain this is false. There is absolutely no set percentage. This question comes up all the time, and the answer is crystal-clear.

If I reproduce 500 words from a 100,000 word book, but that happens to be a crucial chapter or section, that is not fair dealing.

Authors can indeed make copies of their own works if they retain copyright (which most do). They don't necessarily have the right to use the publishers' design/typesetting though.

Libraries often have a policy that you can photocopy a section of a book, within the limits you posted - but they pay authors for the privilege.

(PS, the guy is a douche!)

My first thought is that the store in question has had problems in the past with people bringing in printouts of files they torrented and never spend a dime in the store on books.

But the attitude shown and the comments made in the first post (if true) just sound like the guy is a dumbass.