Stay with me here, folks. This is a longish post...

I've been wargaming a long time and own alot of old, OOP, and collectable models. In fact in many cases I prefer these older sculpts to the items being produced by GW today. Anyway, far and away the crown jewel in my collection has to be my Space Slann army. I've owned a few original Space Slann models over the years, but nothing even close to an army sized selection. However a few years ago, I scored big time. A friend who was moving cleaned out his storage shed and sold off much of his collection. Amongst these was a large number of RT Space Slann models. Apparently back during the short period of time during which they were available he bought two full "sleaves" of Slann blisters with the intent of building an army. Well of course the Slann were never fleshed out correctly as an army by GW, he lost interest in the project, and the box of half painted models were stored away and forgotten.
Knowing my love for old and exotic RT models he sold the lot to me for a pitance....that is to say the overall price I payed was less than the original lead would have cost him circa 1990 or so when he bought them.

The original owner was not much of painter, so I had alot of work ahead of me in stripping down the figures. But in the end, combined with the handful of Slann I already owned, I have almost 100 Space Slann figures from the original 12 poses that were released for RT. To this add about 30 or fantasy Slann figures from the late "C series" that I converted with 40k guns and the like and you have enough models to run just about any army I like. In many ways it's the perfect proxy army as I can and have run it with the rules for just about any 40k army without anyone batting an eye. it's also probably the most valuable army I own as original Space Slann figures on the rare occasions they show up on Ebay go for between 25-35$US a piece depending on the pose. (do the math on that..it's probably worth more than a Forgeworld army). I also take alot of pride in the fact that it's a totally unique army. I also own a sizable Squat army, but have seen a good number of those over the years. However I have NEVER seen another Space Slann army, let alone one made of original poses. I have every reason to believe that it's totally unique.

Ok, enough background...

The problem is that there were only 12 poses released and all of these were armed with rifle or pistol type weapons.
http://www.solegends.com/citrt/tsf18spaceslann.htm
No poses for heavy or special weapons existed. The original owner had converted a couple of the SPace Slann figures to hold heavy weapons and I had jury rigged up a couple of flamer armed models using fantasy figures. But to run most army options I needed alot more. I had more than enough figures to play with, but was not about to chop up 30$ rare models up for conversions.

Here is were the recasting part comes in.
One of the guys in my local gaming group has a small jewelry centerfuge casting machine and is a skilled minitaure caster. Although he would never dream of selling recast miniatures, he does extensively cast old figures for his own personal use. He is also willing to help friends out with casting projects for the cost of materials. Well, this was the answer to the problem I was having with the lack of weapon options in the Slann army. We put several of the unpainted Slann models on mold and before long you would have thought we had the frogs in a pond of water, spawning!
Using the apropriate heavy and special weapons, I converted up a couple of master models which were then also placed on mold. Now I have acess to a pretty much unlimited number of special and heavy weapon models and it only cost me the price of the materials (a bag of shotgun pellets as casting metal and mold rubber) and my time and labor. (for those who have not experienced it, casting is labor intensive work. It's hot and messy. i would hate to do it for a living or actually try to make money from it as some of the rogue recasters did on Ebay a few years back)

So what do you lot think of this?
I have no plans of selling the army any time soon, and if I ever did I would keep or destroy the recast items. The IP being "infringed upon" is long OOP stuff that GW has long since made their last dime from. The only group negatively effected in this case would be the citadel miniatures collector's community, but even that is a non-issue if the recast models never make it into circulation.

I'm not looking for permission or validation here. (why would I seek that from a bunch of strangers anyway?) I've already done this, and as a rule of thumb if you see a rare OOP figure that has been converted in my collection (a rare sight truth be told as I don't do alot of converting) it's not an orginal casting. I'm just curious what the general feelings on this issue are.

TR

If it's for conversions and that, then it's understandable. These models aren't exactly replaceable if you botch it or don't like it, and it's not as if they are currently available.

And their limited nature means if you are after a complete army, it's exceedingly difficult to do so without recasting.

Is still naughty though.

And their limited nature means if you are after a complete army, it's exceedingly difficult to do so without recasting.

I already have the complete army. It's just weapon options that I needed.
Like I said, problem solved.

Is still naughty though.

Probably. The jury is still out on the legality of casting miniatures for personal use and it really depends on who you ask. Personally, I place it in the same catagory as illegally dubbing video tapes: ie technically a no-no but a very minor issue. In any event it's an almost uninforceable rule. Can you spot good qaulity recasts after they have been painted and based? Neither can I.

TR

You can with Lead and White Metal. Bends differently, and White Metal sort, crackles, for want of a better term when you do so.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:You can with Lead and White Metal. Bends differently, and White Metal sort, crackles, for want of a better term when you do so.

Two points:
-Note I said "after being painted and based". The above test would require tugging someone's painted models to the point of bending them. I doubt even you would do that, do.
-The original Slann poses were made prior to the change over from a lead alloy to a pewter based one. Thus the feel of recasts made from shotgun pellets is almost indentical to original figures. I have a couple of Slann models that were aparently bought via GW's archive service before they stopped carrying the whole RT range circa 1999 or so that are cast from white metal. But these are the exception rather than the rule and 99% of all Slann figures I have seen are lead casts.

But your point is fairly valid. Note I also said "good quality". I am able to spot models from the infamous Ebay rogue reacaster "Mac-Ace" ( a guy who over a couple of years sold literally thousands of OOP 40k figures before Ebay pulled the plug on him) due to their poor quality and very soft metal...probably a result from him using a pour or "drop" casting method rather than a centerfuge machine.

TR

Trench-Raider wrote:

Probably. The jury is still out on the legality of casting miniatures for personal use and it really depends on who you ask. Personally, I place it in the same catagory as illegally dubbing video tapes: ie technically a no-no but a very minor issue. In any event it's an almost uninforceable rule. Can you spot good qaulity recasts after they have been painted and based? Neither can I.

TR

It's really not a case of the jury not being out, it's just that there is virtually no benefit to GW suing a person whose making a small amount of copies for personal use. IP law is complicated in practice, but the theory is amazingly simple. Are you making a copy of another person's work without their permission? If the answer is yes, then you are in violation of Federal law, full stop. The owner does not need to show damages, you do not need to sell them, etc. Of course, it's also illegal to go over the speed limit on the PA turnpike, but I've never seen anybody pulled over on that stretch of road. You will most likely never get caught, and if you are, you will most likely only get a Cease and desist letter. But don't try to convince yourself that it's not illegal.

Now, if you're asking about morality, or what I would think about you doing it? Well, copyrights exist for a reason: to protect IP and make sure that creative types profit from their ideas. It's not like you can buy more Slaan, or any of the type you want/need. Personally, I'd rather see you cast up seperate heavy weapons like the old Eldar weapons and simply convert crew members. I'm not saying I wouldn't play your army, but I really can't in good faith endorse casting your own miniatures (that are partially/mostly copied from GW) and using them. It's a cool idea, and a neat army, but that's just not how you're supposed to convert a cool army.

Legally, you're never going to get punished, and morally, your not hurting anybody.

How about using old Eldar grav platforms, especially the ones that look less like the new one for heavy weapons. They could be crewed by basic and pistol equipped Slann without conversion.

I too own a sizable Squat force and recast the plastic arms using Milliput and Green Stuff moulds. Old armless lead Squats far outnumber their plastic arms on Ebay.

Legally, you're breakin' tha law!

But wink-wink, nudge-nudge keep yer yap shut, and you'll be OK.

Doctor Thunder wrote:Legally, you're never going to get punished, and morally, your not hurting anybody.

Ethically though, you are doing something you know is wrong, for no reason except personal satisfaction.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:Legally, you're never going to get punished, and morally, your not hurting anybody.

Ethically though, you are doing something you know is wrong, for no reason except personal satisfaction.

Depends on your ethics. Games Workshop does not sell the models and never will, so they are not loosing any money. It's only "wrong" if you believe in the law on which it's legality is based. I don't believe in that law, so I don't think it is "wrong."

I don't begrudge anyone who disagrees with me, however.

The default ethical position is to obey laws unless one can find sufficiently important reason to disobey them. That's because abuse of one law may weaken the whole body of law.

Otherwise anyone can "ethically" disobey any law, by saying he disbelieves in it, and all laws become a matter of convenience. (Admittedly, most people do this in some way or other -- I speed on the motorway.)

You don't know that GW won't ever sell the models. It's possible that if the original poster wrote to them, they might find a box of 500 Slann figures in the back of their warehouse.

It's also possible that by searching on the Internet he might find other Slann owners who would be interested in selling him their figures.

A third possibility is that GW might give written permission for him to recast a limited quantity of figures for personal use.

These possibilities are not likely, however it is wrong to assume they are impossible and use that to justify breaking the copyright.

IMO

Kilkrazy wrote:
Otherwise anyone can "ethically" disobey any law, by saying he disbelieves in it, and all laws become a matter of convenience. (Admittedly, most people do this in some way or other -- I speed on the motorway.)

And I refuse to be drafted and die for a country that hates me. (It hasn't happened yet but if I did I would refuse to obey)

So, both you and I agree in principal that laws can ethically be ignored, it is just in the details of which laws we chose to ignore that we disagree.

Trench-Raider wrote:Stay with me here, folks. This is a longish post...

I've been wargaming a long time and own alot of old, OOP, and collectable models. In fact in many cases I prefer these older sculpts to the items being produced by GW today. Anyway, far and away the crown jewel in my collection has to be my Space Slann army. I've owned a few original Space Slann models over the years, but nothing even close to an army sized selection. However a few years ago, I scored big time. A friend who was moving cleaned out his storage shed and sold off much of his collection. Amongst these was a large number of RT Space Slann models. Apparently back during the short period of time during which they were available he bought two full "sleaves" of Slann blisters with the intent of building an army. Well of course the Slann were never fleshed out correctly as an army by GW, he lost interest in the project, and the box of half painted models were stored away and forgotten.
Knowing my love for old and exotic RT models he sold the lot to me for a pitance....that is to say the overall price I payed was less than the original lead would have cost him circa 1990 or so when he bought them.

The original owner was not much of painter, so I had alot of work ahead of me in stripping down the figures. But in the end, combined with the handful of Slann I already owned, I have almost 100 Space Slann figures from the original 12 poses that were released for RT. To this add about 30 or fantasy Slann figures from the late "C series" that I converted with 40k guns and the like and you have enough models to run just about any army I like. In many ways it's the perfect proxy army as I can and have run it with the rules for just about any 40k army without anyone batting an eye. it's also probably the most valuable army I own as original Space Slann figures on the rare occasions they show up on Ebay go for between 25-35$US a piece depending on the pose. (do the math on that..it's probably worth more than a Forgeworld army). I also take alot of pride in the fact that it's a totally unique army. I also own a sizable Squat army, but have seen a good number of those over the years. However I have NEVER seen another Space Slann army, let alone one made of original poses. I have every reason to believe that it's totally unique.

Ok, enough background...

The problem is that there were only 12 poses released and all of these were armed with rifle or pistol type weapons.
http://www.solegends.com/citrt/tsf18spaceslann.htm
No poses for heavy or special weapons existed. The original owner had converted a couple of the SPace Slann figures to hold heavy weapons and I had jury rigged up a couple of flamer armed models using fantasy figures. But to run most army options I needed alot more. I had more than enough figures to play with, but was not about to chop up 30$ rare models up for conversions.

Here is were the recasting part comes in.
One of the guys in my local gaming group has a small jewelry centerfuge casting machine and is a skilled minitaure caster. Although he would never dream of selling recast miniatures, he does extensively cast old figures for his own personal use. He is also willing to help friends out with casting projects for the cost of materials. Well, this was the answer to the problem I was having with the lack of weapon options in the Slann army. We put several of the unpainted Slann models on mold and before long you would have thought we had the frogs in a pond of water, spawning!
Using the apropriate heavy and special weapons, I converted up a couple of master models which were then also placed on mold. Now I have acess to a pretty much unlimited number of special and heavy weapon models and it only cost me the price of the materials (a bag of shotgun pellets as casting metal and mold rubber) and my time and labor. (for those who have not experienced it, casting is labor intensive work. It's hot and messy. i would hate to do it for a living or actually try to make money from it as some of the rogue recasters did on Ebay a few years back)

So what do you lot think of this?
I have no plans of selling the army any time soon, and if I ever did I would keep or destroy the recast items. The IP being "infringed upon" is long OOP stuff that GW has long since made their last dime from. The only group negatively effected in this case would be the citadel miniatures collector's community, but even that is a non-issue if the recast models never make it into circulation.

I'm not looking for permission or validation here. (why would I seek that from a bunch of strangers anyway?) I've already done this, and as a rule of thumb if you see a rare OOP figure that has been converted in my collection (a rare sight truth be told as I don't do alot of converting) it's not an orginal casting. I'm just curious what the general feelings on this issue are.

TR

Spug the Law, do it if it looks good and you enjoy it.

If they would have kept interest in the Slann, then I can see a problem, but they dropped them and in effect won't go back and remake them, so !@#$ them. Don't worry about it, You obviously have more of a real honest to goodness need for the conversions then just that of beeing some sort of chinese pirate good stuff.

I would really like to se a picture of the finished product, because, after all that wouyld be the brass tacks to judge if you are rally even doing anything wrong.

Want an example? go over to the Reaper Mini's site and tell me how many of the minis you recognise from the old GW sculpters that are now working for them. By that standard, if its good for the goose, its good for the gander.

Good luck on the project.

I'll just chip in to say I'm sure there are still many slann from the fantasy range out there as well from 'back in the day' like the houndmaster with his alligator-hounds and the original slann lord on a palanquin as well as the infantry and cold one riders (and lobotomised human slave fighters, remember them?). many of those would be suitable for conversion work and additional troop types.

I did once contemplate making a Space Slann army using the really nice fantasy battle ones counting them as Farseer on Jetbikes. Then making the rest of the army out of whatever i liked, counting them as various Eldar units.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Otherwise anyone can "ethically" disobey any law, by saying he disbelieves in it, and all laws become a matter of convenience. (Admittedly, most people do this in some way or other -- I speed on the motorway.)

And I refuse to be drafted and die for a country that hates me. (It hasn't happened yet but if I did I would refuse to obey)

So, both you and I agree in principal that laws can ethically be ignored, it is just in the details of which laws we chose to ignore that we disagree.

Ethically, laws should never be ignored -- one should always think of the balance of right and wrong. There may be cases in which they should be defied in pursuit of a higher ethical purpose. For example, if taking one's wife to hospital in labour, it would be ethically right to exceed the speed limit if one can do safely.

My point in this case is that the OP has not yet exhausted all legal avenues, so he would be wrong to go straight to the illegal recasting option.

Trench-Raider wrote:
The problem is that there were only 12 poses released and all of these were armed with rifle or pistol type weapons.
http://www.solegends.com/citrt/tsf18spaceslann.htm
No poses for heavy or special weapons existed. The original owner had converted a couple of the SPace Slann figures to hold heavy weapons and I had jury rigged up a couple of flamer armed models using fantasy figures. But to run most army options I needed alot more. I had more than enough figures to play with, but was not about to chop up 30$ rare models up for conversions.

Here is were the recasting part comes in.
One of the guys in my local gaming group has a small jewelry centerfuge casting machine and is a skilled minitaure caster. Although he would never dream of selling recast miniatures, he does extensively cast old figures for his own personal use. He is also willing to help friends out with casting projects for the cost of materials. Well, this was the answer to the problem I was having with the lack of weapon options in the Slann army. We put several of the unpainted Slann models on mold and before long you would have thought we had the frogs in a pond of water, spawning!

If you're not looking for validation, I'm not sure why you are sharing.

(Disclaimer: While I am an IP lawyer, I am not your lawyer. The following is not intended as legal advice, and we have no legal relationship. If you want legal advice, find one of my colleagues in your jurisdiction and pay for it.)

What you are doing is probably illegal. Recasting a figure (for nearly any purpose) is copyright infringement. In making heavy/special weapons models (probably using GW's weapons?) you're creating a very definite derivative work, which is a right reserved to the copyright holder.

The only applicable defenses involve the concept of "fair use," and I cannot construct a reasonable argument on your behalf that this qualifies. "They didn't make the models I wanted" is not a defense. "I am not selling them commercially" is an insufficient defense. "I don't want to cut up expensive models" is the opposite to a fair use defense, especially as it undercuts your assertion of unavailability.

Doctor Thunder wrote:Depends on your ethics. Games Workshop does not sell the models and never will, so they are not loosing any money. It's only "wrong" if you believe in the law on which it's legality is based. I don't believe in that law, so I don't think it is "wrong."

I suppose I could go into the many justifications behind the whole system of intellectual property, it's place in business and the creative process, etc. But that probably won't change anyone's mind. My experience, at least among individuals, is that they view IP as an obstacle to overcome, rather than an acknowledgement that SOMEONE has created something cool enough that they want it; they just don't want to pay for it. I'm just happy enough people are willing to respect other people's IP, so that there are still movies to watch, music to listen to, books to read, software to use, and miniatures games to play.

Kilkrazy wrote:Ethically, laws should never be ignored -- one should always think of the balance of right and wrong. There may be cases in which they should be defied in pursuit of a higher ethical purpose. For example, if taking one's wife to hospital in labour, it would be ethically right to exceed the speed limit if one can do safely.

My point in this case is that the OP has not yet exhausted all legal avenues, so he would be wrong to go straight to the illegal recasting option.

I think your stance that laws should always be followed is an admirable one, and I applaud you for it.

For me, however, that is too simplistic. Laws are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. They are rules made by those in power, and they are only as pure or as good or as useful as the intentions of those who made them. Good laws should be followed, not because they are laws, but because they are good. Bad laws should only be followed enough to avoid unpleasant conflict with authorities.

I'm generally suspicious of laws that punish people when there was no victim or injury, but I'm particularly suspicious of laws that only protect those with lots of money. Ten years ago one of my screenplays was lifted and made into a motion picture with only the slightest of changes made, but in that case IP law did nothing to protect me except in theory, because I did not have the money to cover the legal costs to prosecute the case. I could only afford a few hours of the cheapest legal council, while my opposition had an entire team of permanently retained lawyers that could drag on the case for years without breaking a sweat. If I had attempted to take them on it would have bankrupted me.

Remember that the legal world is not about right and wrong, nor is it about legal or illegal. It is a schoolyard where the biggest kid wins. This is why GW can frequently strong arm small businesses with weak cases that are clearly baseless, because they know that their opposition cannot afford to oppose them and so they back down even when they are in the right.

A law that only protects those that can afford to enforce it is a bad law and should be ignored.

Who gets to pick the good and bad laws? Is there a list somewhere? There are laws that I consider bad and that I violate from time to time however I don't consider myself morally or ethically justified in my actions and if I was caught would consider myself at fault not the government. While I'm sympathetic to the OP because the models have been OOP I generally have contempt for people who do things like this. However, I've seen worse like making an entire army out of resin.

Your in the wrong to do it. The 'jury' isn't undecided, you just don't get punished most of the time that you do it. Not getting caught/punished doesn't making you less wrong. You say you don't care about validation, but I expect you'll argue for ever with anyone that doesn't agree with you.

Doctor Thunder wrote:
I think your stance that laws should always be followed is an admirable one, and I applaud you for it.

For me, however, that is too simplistic. Laws are neither inherently good nor inherently bad. They are rules made by those in power, and they are only as pure or as good or as useful as the intentions of those who made them. Good laws should be followed, not because they are laws, but because they are good. Bad laws should only be followed enough to avoid unpleasant conflict with authorities.

That's fine statement, but I think you're going to have a hard time rallying folks to this standard. "Bad Laws" can and do exist, and many were immoral. I'm a little leery of any one person saying they know good and bad laws, and only follow those that they think are good. That is seeing oneself as above the law and is a bit arrogant for my tastes.

I'm generally suspicious of laws that punish people when there was no victim or injury, but I'm particularly suspicious of laws that only protect those with lots of money. Ten years ago one of my screenplays was lifted and made into a motion picture with only the slightest of changes made, but in that case IP law did nothing to protect me except in theory, because I did not have the money to cover the legal costs to prosecute the case. I could only afford a few hours of the cheapest legal council, while my opposition had an entire team of permanently retained lawyers that could drag on the case for years without breaking a sweat. If I had attempted to take them on it would have bankrupted me.

Well, let's always be careful when you claim "there is no victim." Copyrighted material is the product of somebodies thought and creativity and labor, and they (or more likely their employer) enjoys the right of seeing that work reproduced as they see fit. I'm not saying it's a greivous injury, but maybe GW simply doens't want to see Space Slaan with heavy weapons. that is their right, and no matter how trivial, you are infringing upon it.

Additionally, I'm sorry you had your script stolen, particularly since "they stole my script" is up their with "the dingo ate my baby" in terms of believability. As i'm sure your low rent legal counsel told you, if you had registered the work (it takes about $45 and a form, less electronicaly), you would be eligible to sue for statutory damages plus legal fees, meaning even little guys can sue big guys. I'm not saying it always works, but your case sounds less like a fundamental flaw in the concept of rule of law than a series of bad breaks that has left you bitter about the system.

Remember that the legal world is not about right and wrong, nor is it about legal or illegal. It is a schoolyard where the biggest kid wins. This is why GW can frequently strong arm small businesses with weak cases that are clearly baseless, because they know that their opposition cannot afford to oppose them and so they back down even when they are in the right.

A law that only protects those that can afford to enforce it is a bad law and should be ignored.

This last bit is so untrue it hurts. Yes, the wealthy and powerful can drag out cases past where fairness would dictate, but to think that sheer size or meanness can make up for a strong legal case is simply preposterous. Look, you got screwed, and I'm sorry, but while the process could be improved (and there is an increasing movement among judges to issue sanctions for stalling tactics and other shenanigans), your proposal to simply abandon law is not really workable. Like it or not, rule of law is the only thing keeping the rich and powerful from simply owning us like chattel.

Polonius wrote:
That's fine statement, but I think you're going to have a hard time rallying folks to this standard.

I'm not really interested in convincing anyone of anything in this thread. Like I said, if people disagree with me, I respect that, and I don't begrudge them their right to their opinion. I am merely sharing mine.

Additionally, I'm sorry you had your script stolen, particularly since "they stole my script" is up their with "the dingo ate my baby" in terms of believability.

You are free to think me a liar if you want. I feel no particular desire to convince you. I only brought it up to explain why I do not believe in IP laws.

As i'm sure your low rent legal counsel told you, if you had registered the work (it takes about $45 and a form, less electronicaly), you would be eligible to sue for statutory damages plus legal fees, meaning even little guys can sue big guys. I'm not saying it always works, but your case sounds less like a fundamental flaw in the concept of rule of law than a series of bad breaks that has left you bitter about the system.

Actually, I did copyright my screenplay, for all the good it did me. I'm sure Janthkin can explain to you the enormous grey legal line that exists as to how many alterations need to be made to a work before it no longer counts as IP violation, which is where all the dance occurs.

but while the process could be improved (and there is an increasing movement among judges to issue sanctions for stalling tactics and other shenanigans), your proposal to simply abandon law is not really workable.

I think of it as civil disobedience, which has a long and noble tradition in the country I live in and in the world.

Like it or not, rule of law is the only thing keeping the rich and powerful from simply owning us like chattel.

I commend your reverence for the rule of law. (I really do, I'm not being sarcastic) I just don't share it. I think it has something to do with the fact that not too many generations ago, the authorities in north america attempted to genocidally wipe out my people. Now, I'm not trying to play a pity card here or anything, I'm just saying that knowing that leaves me a bit suspicious of the laws created by those same institutions and people.

Like I said before. Feel free to disagree. I respect your opinions on this matter, I just don't share them. If I have brought up too many personal details, I apologize. I did not intend to cloud the issue, I only wanted to give some of the reasons behind my opinions.

Ok are we talking the incident with Governor Boggs or something else? If it is the Missouri death order, just remember that "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Marshal Torrick wrote:Ok are we talking the incident with Governor Boggs or something else? If it is the Missouri death order, just remember that "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

We're talking about recasting of copyrighted little toy soldiers. No clue what you're talking about.

I think that you need to show us all pics of your Space Slann army so we can poo-poo your morality but admire your toy soldiers.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

I love it when this sort of question comes up, it's fun just sitting back reading all the twisiting and turning on the morale & IP issues Lets keep things nice and simple, GW in reality won't know and won't care. Only an anorak would know that you're fielding some models that were never made, and a true anorak would be impressed, not horrified, at what you'd done. If someone kicked off about it when you went to play them, just tell them to get a life and walkaway. Years ago, 40k 2nd edition time scale, I was unemployed and wanted some of the new style jump packs. Couldn't afford them, so got a mate to make me a mould and then recast 10 of them. Had no worries about it then and none now, because it was a one off and very small amount.

Wolfstan wrote:I love it when this sort of question comes up, it's fun just sitting back reading all the twisiting and turning on the morale & IP issues Lets keep things nice and simple, GW in reality won't know and won't care. Only an anorak would know that you're fielding some models that were never made, and a true anorak would be impressed, not horrified, at what you'd done. If someone kicked off about it when you went to play them, just tell them to get a life and walkaway. Years ago, 40k 2nd edition time scale, I was unemployed and wanted some of the new style jump packs. Couldn't afford them, so got a mate to make me a mould and then recast 10 of them. Had no worries about it then and none now, because it was a one off and very small amount.

Do you mean worries in the sense that you didn't think you would get found out, or worries in the sense that you didn't think it was wrong?

Not worried. I did it the once, and I'm unlikely to do it again. Also lets put this into perspective, people take a moral high ground on it, but how many of them have taped a record/cd, not paid for downloaded music, lent friends a dvd or book, recorded off the TV and lent that to a friend? All of these are just as illegal in the eyes of the law. My comment is that why bust your whatsits over something that is trivial?

Why don't you ask GW?

You have noticed all the scratch-built titans that ARE costing GW money, and they don't give a flying .

If you take a look at classicminiatures.net, you can probably very well tell the difference.

Legally, you aren't doing anything wrong--despite all the claims otherwise.

GW can tell you to take your 'fakes' and get out of events they run, but they don't prosecute (or even threaten it) unless you intend to sell their figures AND claim they are original.

It's an important point, lost on many.

Personally? I could give a . Do whatever you want with your own stuff. Make five armies outta it for all I care. I think those space slaan (something I'm in favor of fluff wise, thus my liz-Ork project) are a neat idea but look like utter rubbish.

So more power to you if you can make them look good in an army you like that you'll play.

It'd take a court order to make you strip down a painted fig so the model could be analyzed chemically to see if it was a 'fake'.

If anyone really thinks GW will do that, you are nuts. They are IP fanatics, but there's alot of lines they won't cross (because of the kind of bad publicity they'd get if it was NOT a fake) and believe you me this is one of those lines.

Really. They could give a about OOP models. Hasn't anyone noticed? No money for them, no money for you...yeah, who cares? GW? Funny.

Stelek wrote:Legally, you aren't doing anything wrong--despite all the claims otherwise.

GW can tell you to take your 'fakes' and get out of events they run, but they don't prosecute (or even threaten it) unless you intend to sell their figures AND claim they are original.

It's an important point, lost on many.

Yours is an interesting world, in which legality depends solely on whether or not you get prosecuted for something.

Janthkin wrote:

Marshal Torrick wrote:Ok are we talking the incident with Governor Boggs or something else? If it is the Missouri death order, just remember that "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

We're talking about recasting of copyrighted little toy soldiers. No clue what you're talking about.

That was just in reference to Doctor Thunders comment that he doesn't support the law much because:

"I think it has something to do with the fact that not too many generations ago, the authorities in north america attempted to genocidally wipe out my people."

If he's from the group I suspect he is, and which I am as well, my post was to remind him that we, regardless of what happened, should obey the law.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Otherwise anyone can "ethically" disobey any law, by saying he disbelieves in it, and all laws become a matter of convenience. (Admittedly, most people do this in some way or other -- I speed on the motorway.)

And I refuse to be drafted and die for a country that hates me. (It hasn't happened yet but if I did I would refuse to obey)

So, both you and I agree in principal that laws can ethically be ignored, it is just in the details of which laws we chose to ignore that we disagree.

nice debate.. let's get back on topic..

The topic is what people think about recasting.

So our comments are completely relevant.

Few understand recasting and derivative works.

Here goes, buy a model, any model, make as many copies as you want! It doesnt mater at all, heck make copy molds of the new ones!

Until you proffit from it it doesnt matter, and even then, for OOP models? Yea it doesn't matter at all.

Also for derivative works, as in the conversions that were recast, they are derivative works, that is unique so that REALLY doesn't matter.

Acting like GW ninjas are going to fall from the roof and imprison you if you copy something (of any vintage) makes me completely laugh, real modelers copy stuff all the time, it's actually a legitimate part of the hobby.

Also with inexplicable removal of the bitz from GW it has been an absolute pleasure to watch all the bits trader sites spring up all over the place.

After how many years of draconian internet sales IP chasing? Ha ha ha, here it is all over again, they just open the packs...

I surely hope there is an entire community of recasters out there who go ahead and make their own bits now that GW quit supporting them with a decent service. I know I do!

Augustus wrote:Few understand recasting and derivative works.

Here goes, buy a model, any model, make as many copies as you want! It doesnt mater at all, heck make copy molds of the new ones!

Wrong.

Title 17 wrote:
Section 101:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Section 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
...
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
....

Section 202:
Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.

I don't care about your personal opinions about following the law. But you do everyone a disservice when you misstate what the law IS.

I suggest the thread should be locked.

The OP has got plenty of varying opinions on his query and can make his own mind up.

I doubt there will be a resolution of the ethical argument.

No, do not lock. It is good to get thee arguements out in the open. It is also a useful discussion. Note that there is nothing in the word arguement that in itself implies raised voices and bared teeth. My turn now.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:Legally, you're never going to get punished, and morally, your not hurting anybody.

Ethically though, you are doing something you know is wrong, for no reason except personal satisfaction.

While this is hopelesly optimistic I generally prefer to think law should follow medicine in that its primary condition should be 'do no harm'.

Janthkin wrote:
If you're not looking for validation, I'm not sure why you are sharing.

(Disclaimer: While I am an IP lawyer, I am not your lawyer. The following is not intended as legal advice, and we have no legal relationship. If you want legal advice, find one of my colleagues in your jurisdiction and pay for it.)

Interesting, then you will know that a lot of IP law is based on bullying and what you can get away with. Conversely if you dont defend IP when challenged it can set a precedent fior it to be lost. Both correct, yes?
If so no wonder IP law is such a mess.

Stelek wrote:Why don't you ask GW?

Er, very bad idea. For a start GW are not known for rational reactions, second it puts them on the spot. Deliberately drawing a breach to their attention is asking to be stepped on. For example the police often turn a blind eye to a bit of weed, but I am sure if you walk up to them and roll a fatty in their faces they will get officious. Same principle applies, and no that is not a pro-drugs comment.

Stelek wrote:
You have noticed all the scratch-built titans that ARE costing GW money, and they don't give a flying .

Agreed, GW deliberately put Warlord titans in Apocalypse, and plenty of obivous scratch build Stompas too. They are encouraging scratchbuilding, the scratchbuilds are you property and you can sell them. if however you started 'producing' cast titans for sale they will react. However I doubt it is costing Gw money. whoever buys the wooden warlord posted here recently probably wants or has got an apocalypse ready army to go with it. Warlord scratchbuilds drive sales up by increasing the senisible collection limit for more players encouraging them to think a dozen tanks rather than three or four.

Wizards reaklised the truth of this when they placed a copyleft on the core rules of D&D, by allowing third parties to add their own supplements the core hobby expanded and revenues increased.

Orlanth wrote:

Janthkin wrote:
If you're not looking for validation, I'm not sure why you are sharing.

(Disclaimer: While I am an IP lawyer, I am not your lawyer. The following is not intended as legal advice, and we have no legal relationship. If you want legal advice, find one of my colleagues in your jurisdiction and pay for it.)

Interesting, then you will know that a lot of IP law is based on bullying and what you can get away with. Conversely if you dont defend IP when challenged it can set a precedent fior it to be lost. Both correct, yes?
If so no wonder IP law is such a mess.

No, neither are correct. IP law, in the US at least, incorporates protections for both the IP owner and non-owners. None of the defenses operates here, however.

Speaking EXTREMELY broadly, trademarks have a requirement that you defend them; copyright does not.

Orlanth wrote:Wizards reaklised the truth of this when they placed a copyleft on the core rules of D&D, by allowing third parties to add their own supplements the core hobby expanded and revenues increased.

Wizards didn't copyleft anything; they included a open-ended license that allowed others to make use of their ruleset, provided certain restrictions were observed.

Janthkin wrote:

Stelek wrote:Legally, you aren't doing anything wrong--despite all the claims otherwise.

GW can tell you to take your 'fakes' and get out of events they run, but they don't prosecute (or even threaten it) unless you intend to sell their figures AND claim they are original.

It's an important point, lost on many.

Yours is an interesting world, in which legality depends solely on whether or not you get prosecuted for something.

Welcome to the United States.

Janthkin wrote:

Title 17 wrote:
Section 101:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Janthkin, as a musician I find this quite interesting. I have a question regarding this as it applies to musical arrangement, and so as not to drive this thread too off-topic, would you mind if I sent you a PM about it? Before you feel the need to drop one of your disclaimers again, I'm not looking for legal advice, just some basic info.

Or if you prefer, I could start a thread on it in the Off-Topic section.

NOTE: to the casual reader, if you are legitimately concerned about this, go learn it for yourself at:

http://www.copyright.gov

Allow me to retort, derivative works for personal use are completely legal, ethical, and a legitimate part of the hobby because of the fair use clauses!

Quoted from: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

...

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

So you see, until you sell it, for profit, or give it away and compromise the value of the copyrighted work, you're in the clear.

*Spell Edit

Augustus wrote:NOTE: to the casual reader, if you are legitimately concerned about this, go learn it for yourself at:

http://www.copyright.gov

Allow me to retort, derivative works for personal use are completely legal, ethical, and a legitimate part of the hobby because of the fair use clauses!

Quoted from: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

...

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

So you see, until you sell it, for profit, or give it away and compromise the value of the copyrighted work, you're in the clear.

*Spell Edit

What the Fair Use clauses provide is possible defences against a charge of copyright violation. It would be up to the court to decide if the recasting constituted fair use or not in any particular case.

The "nonprofit" and "potential market" angles are only factors to be considered and are not decisive in themselves.

first off throw the legality out the window, it is ilegal but so is gluing penny's to the mini's base.

I plan on making a scout speeder for my 'nurse core' out of the old speeder models and making molds of them if I keep in the game.

Augustus wrote:Also with inexplicable removal of the bitz from GW it has been an absolute pleasure to watch all the bits trader sites spring up all over the place.

After how many years of draconian internet sales IP chasing? Ha ha ha, here it is all over again, they just open the packs...

I surely hope there is an entire community of recasters out there who go ahead and make their own bits now that GW quit supporting them with a decent service. I know I do!

WOO! YEAH! SMASH THE STATE! REVOLUTION! ANARCHISTS UNITE! (spot the oxymoron)

Fair Use policy....well, that depends on the subject of fair use. Recasting a small piece, like Purity Seals....yeah, thats fair use. But Plasma Guns etc....thats not entirely-fair-use really.

The difference here is that Trench Raider would be seemingly willing to buy through legitimate means the models he wishes to convert and that, but as no alternative is forthcoming, the fair use could be seen, in this example, to accomodate re-cast models. As I said in my original post, it's still naughty, but acceptable (like speeding to get an injured person to Hospital quicker.)

But, just because you deem their service lacking, does not extend fair use to not paying for things currently available. This is akin to speeding because you are late for work. Both, to the person in question, seem reasonable, but both had perfectly viable alternatives (visit a Bitz Store, or get up and out the house earlier).

I mean, Dakka even has it's own swap shop. I'm sure other members would be more than happy to furnish you with the bits you are after....

But hey, power to the people yo! Mans got a right to feel the buzz of doing something slightly naughty like a desperado!

OH and with regard to the Bitz Sellers opening up the packs....you are *happy* about some sod ripping you off? If you have a trade account with GW, be it an Online or FLGS, you pay the same amount. Thus, if they are splitting the packs down and selling the bitz off at a premium, it's you being ripped off. Not GW. *You*. And this is why GW are closing trade accounts with certain culprits. The Trade Agreement states you cannot split the pack down, and you must sell as supplied. GW aren't looking after their own pocket there. It's yours, mine and other gamers. Some evil empire huh?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:WOO! YEAH! SMASH THE STATE! REVOLUTION! ANARCHISTS UNITE! (spot the oxymoron)

I'm having a little trouble finding it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:OH and with regard to the Bitz Sellers opening up the packs....you are *happy* about some sod ripping you off? If you have a trade account with GW, be it an Online or FLGS, you pay the same amount. Thus, if they are splitting the packs down and selling the bitz off at a premium, it's you being ripped off. Not GW. *You*. And this is why GW are closing trade accounts with certain culprits. The Trade Agreement states you cannot split the pack down, and you must sell as supplied. GW aren't looking after their own pocket there. It's yours, mine and other gamers. Some evil empire huh?

What a crock! Back when BWBits still lived (before GW killed them) I picked up a bunch of Meltaguns for much cheaper (including postage from the US) than GW was selling them at with their bits service. They're not an Evil Empire but GW have never looked after my pocket over their own.

In this hobby if you deem something worth the cost you're not being ripped off.

The Oxymoron was Anarchists Unite.
Being anarchists, any kind of organisation to do with such in inherently non-anarchic, thus an oxymoron.

Anarchists don't have leaders, there's nothing to stop them uniting. Anarchism does not preclude cooperation.

Further to the re-making your own figures debate since Tallarn rough riders are now defunct I may have a crack at making their torso's for my second squad of Cold One riding Rough Riders. Unless anyone knows where they are available.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/IMPERIAL-GUARD-TALLARN-ROUGH-RIDER-NEW_W0QQitemZ270278489147QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item270278489147&_trkparms=72%3A1301%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

BIGGEDYBIGGEDYBONG!

Thus, these are still feely (and cheaply) available through legitimate means. The Space Slann however are quite the rarity. Just searched for them on Ebay, and found two Blisters of Fantasy Slann.....

yeah,

What I don't understand is why you didn't just cast the parts you need to convert some slan to heavy weapons guys...
using your own IP: design your own slann HW arms or Slann Heavy weapon platform. and Cast those.
then buy GW Heavy Weapons and convert the completed Slann heavy weapon trooper.

recasting whole models is wrong. There is no such thing as a victim less crime
somewhere someone is doing this the right way and paying for his army. he deserves to be the only one with a fully slan army, not you.

Oh and post pictures of your slann army... or it never happened .

PaniC...

He did didn't he? Sure there are pics of it floating around on Dakka.

Recasting, casting and converting are part of the hobby. I'd say that recasting a vintage figure for personal use places you morally in the clear. Are you making money from it? No. Does it cost GW money? No. Does it compromise their IP? Unlikely, they don't even carry the range.

Come on, all, this legal finger wagging is self righteous nonsense, lets look at the real world. Of the people who have tutted about your recasting, who has made a copy of music at home? Who has photocopied something they shouldn't have? Who has lent a video or DVD to a friend?

You're not going to be prosecuted and if GW don't like what you're doing they will let you know by sending a cease and desist order first. Should that happen, and I highly doubt it, then you should comply.

And where do you draw the line on recasting and converting? Say you wanted a whole army of Imperial Fists to do and you wanted the Fist marked shoulder pads for them all. Here are your options...

Buy legal metal shoulder pads for every one

Buy some metal ones and recast to get enough

-

Get normal plastic shoulder pads and convert each one with greenstuff to copy the metal ones.

Convert one normal plastic shoulder pad and recast the rest from that.

-

Entirely scratchbuild all the shouldpads individually so the are indistinguishable from the ones GW supply.

Scratchbuild one entirely and recast from that.

The end result in each case appears exactly the same. Which is legal and which isn't? You're reproducing the image of GW copyrighted material in every case apart from when you buy.

Is it ok to sculpt a figure entirely from greenstuff to use in your army? Can you then recast that figure, or parts of it for yourself? How many recasts? Can you recast your whole army from that figure? Can you make one bolter and recast that for your army?

Bolter no, not if it is based on GW's design, or a derivative thereof.

Same with your own figures, unless you wish to have, purely for example, a home made army of Star Bears using the Space Marine rules. Then you are in the clear, as the Star Bears have nowt to do with GW.

The law is pretty clear cut.

And as to Trenchie's recasting, it's still not 'morally in the clear' but there is no real alternative, ergo it is understandable. See my earlier examples of driving above the Speed Limits. It is ALWAYS illegal, but in some cases it is more justifiable and likely to have a blind eye turned to it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Bolter no, not if it is based on GW's design, or a derivative thereof.

How far does that extend? Just bolters or whole Space Marines? Can you scratch build reproductions of GW stuff and recast that? You could make a whole army without buying a single product, and while this is a grey area I think that would be well over the line.

Nope. Essentially, if you sculpt your own Marines, and they look like Marines, you have created a derivative, and strictly speaking, you have infringed on GW's IP.

But sculpting your own range of models, and then using them for 'Counts As' gaming is fine, as the designs are your own.

Quite a few companies have had GW's Lawyers knocking on their doors about derivatives and that. I believe one of them used Azrael's Combi-Weapon, recast and claimed 'all me own work guv'. Yeah. Honest.

Sorry, double post.

Recasting isn't legal just because we can't buy the part from GW any more. Nor it is legal because we just don't want to pay for the legitimate parts.

If we recast rather than search eBay, etc. we are depriving owners who would have liked to sell us legitimate parts.

Just because we don't get caught recasting, doesn't make it legal or moral.

Just because someone has an illegally copied CD, it doesn't justify us recasting stuff. (It makes them a hypocrite for attacking us.)

Now let's look at the ethical case.

This can be considered from several angles.

1. What is the balance of benefit and harm to the people and companies involved?

If we want to recast a small number of items, for private use only, and they complete an army that would otherwise have been wasted, and we have tried and failed in legal ways of getting the parts needed, then in my opinion we have a case for doing the recasting. No-one is harmed, and we benefit as do our future opponents, and we avoid the waste of resources that went into the rest of the figures in your army. However we must still recognise that recasting is illegal.

2. Does society as a whole suffer from the law being flouted?

Arguably yes, however as long as we the recaster recognize we are breaking the law, and don’t boast about it and spread our skills and products, there should be no ill effects on the law as a whole.

Augustus wrote:NOTE: to the casual reader, if you are legitimately concerned about this, go learn it for yourself at:

http://www.copyright.gov

Allow me to retort, derivative works for personal use are completely legal, ethical, and a legitimate part of the hobby because of the fair use clauses!

Quoted from: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

...

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

So you see, until you sell it, for profit, or give it away and compromise the value of the copyrighted work, you're in the clear.

*Spell Edit

Go back and reread section 107. What you listed are merely factors to be considered in determining whether something is fair use or not; as the courts say EVERY TIME they discuss Fair Use, no single factor is definitive. And neither factor 1 nor 4 are as simple as you might believe - it's not a binary "are you selling it?" test. Factor 4, in particular, is a sticky one, and may hinge on GW's plans for the range, as well as the 40k universe as a whole. I'd also point you back to the part BEFORE the list of factors - Fair Use exists primarily for the benefit of criticism and discussion, not recasting because we don't want to chop up expensive OOP models.

To say nothing of factors 2 & 3, which you conveniently left out:

Title 17, Section 107 wrote:
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

The nature of the work here is sculpture (as opposed to, say, a phone book, which has a more limited "creative" element). As we're discussing recasting, we're talking complete copies of the work.

Kilkrazy wrote:Recasting isn't legal just because we can't buy the part from GW any more. Nor it is legal because we just don't want to pay for the legitimate parts.

If we recast rather than search eBay, etc. we are depriving owners who would have liked to sell us legitimate parts.

Just because we don't get caught recasting, doesn't make it legal or moral.

...

However we must still recognise that recasting is illegal.

No we don't have to recognize that, thats just wrong. As quoted earlier, unless its for proffit, or deprives the owner of value in the market, it's in the clear. Quoted directly from the rules in the US gov. website in my earlier post.

Janthkin wrote:..- it's not a binary "are you selling it?" test..

My post was summarized to get at the essentials, thats why I left out 2 and 3, not to obfuscate anything, if you think they have more relevancve, explain it for us please.

...and for the context in question; limited to derivative works for personal use, is it an are you selling it test? Yes it is.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Bolter no, not if it is based on GW's design, or a derivative thereof.

How far does that extend? Just bolters or whole Space Marines? Can you scratch build reproductions of GW stuff and recast that?

It extends to any facscimile of copyrighted work, wether you completely create a small component yourself in the image of the original up to exact replication of entire pieces.

Howard A Treesong wrote:You could make a whole army without buying a single product, and while this is a grey area I think that would be well over the line.

Yes you can, and it wouldn't be over the line at all. Until you proffited, or damaged the owners market value by distributing copies, it would be totally fine. You can make anything you want.

While I’m not an IP lawyer as Janthkin is, my understanding of Fair Use has always been that it’s primarily to protect criticism, analysis, and discussion. Not so much duplication entire.

Augustus wrote:

Janthkin wrote:..- it's not a binary "are you selling it?" test..

My post was summarized to get at the essentials, thats why I left out 2 and 3, not to obfuscate anything, if you think they have more relevancve, explain it for us please.

...and for the context in question; limited to derivative works for personal use, is it an are you selling it test? Yes it is.

No, it isn't. Can you find ONE case where "Fair Use" is an applicable defense for duplication of a tangible sculpture? I can't, and I have looked.

As I noted above, none of the "four factors" in a fair use analysis are individually dispositive.

Judge Patterson wrote:
The evaluation of these factors is “an open-ended and context-sensitive
inquiry,” Blanch, 467 F.3d at 244; accord Campbell, 510 U.S. at 577 (stating that “the
statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for a case-by-case analysis”), and the
examples listed in the statute (i.e., criticism, comment, news reporting, and teaching) are
illustrative rather than limiting, Campbell, 510 U.S. at 577-78. The four statutory factors
may not “be treated in isolation, one from another”; instead they all must “be explored,
and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright.”

(Just the easiest example, from the J.K. Rowling decision earlier this month.

*edit: While I'm in here, for Mannahnin:

Judge Patterson wrote:
“The ultimate test of fair use, therefore, is whether the copyright law’s goal of ‘promoting the
Progress of Science and useful Arts,’ U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8, ‘would be better served
by allowing the use than by preventing it.’” Castle Rock, 150 F.3d at 141 (quoting Arica
Inst., 970 F.2d at 1077).

I can't see how allowing someone to create recasts of figures for their own use promotes the progress of sciense & the useful arts. Can you, Augustus?

Yes I can. I think miniature wargaming is a useful art.

...and I can spell science, (just kidding).

But what is useless art?

I am not a lawyer, I wouldn't even know where to get a case record.

Do you know of any cases specifically concerning 3d duplication?

Tell us about one?

Can you find even one case where someone was persecuted for making a recast without profiting or damaging the market value?

Useless art? That's easy.

Damien Hirsts 2 Halves of a Cow, that pile of Bricks, Tracy Emins shitted bed.....basically, any crap Charles Saatchi is willing to fork millions out on really.

Heh, funny

I was being serious.

Augustus wrote:Yes I can. I think miniature wargaming is a useful art.

...and I can spell science, (just kidding).

But what is useless art?

I was using the silly "double click to edit" functionality, and had already lost my comments twice, through clicking outside the box without hitting "update." It made me hasty and irate.

You've fallen into the trap set by the Constitution: PATENTS are "art," where other IP is "science."

But things that are unprotected by copyright include functional descriptions (like the white pages of the phone book), as well as all "functional" things (which are intended to be protected by patent, rather than copyright).

Augustus wrote:Can you find even one case where someone was persecuted for making a recast without profiting or damaging the market value?

Et tu, Augustus? You sound like Stelek, both in use of "persecuted" (rather than "prosecuted," which is also not quite correct in this matter - we're dealing in terms of civil infringement, rather than criminal), and in caring about whether a recaster will actually be called to account.

I am concerned here with the law, rather than "will I get in trouble if I do this?" As I noted previously, I don't care about people's opinions of recasting, I just don't want people walking away from the thread with misconceptions about what the law actually is.

(As far as finding cases goes, you've got access to the same tools I do - Google doesn't suck, and Lexus offers free searches of their database (just don't download any documents - take the case name, and search for it on Google).)

I'm highly amused that people are arguing with the IP attorney.

Woooo!

Iorek wrote:I'm highly amused that people are arguing with the IP attorney.

Woooo!

I don't know about you, but in any debate between an expert in the field and a guy who is utterly convinced about his position, I'm going with the guy that seems more certain.

Janthkin wrote:

Augustus wrote:Can you find even one case where someone was persecuted for making a recast without profiting or damaging the market value?

Et tu, Augustus? You sound like Stelek, both in use of "persecuted" (rather than "prosecuted," which is also not quite correct in this matter - we're dealing in terms of civil infringement, rather than criminal), and in caring about whether a recaster will actually be called to account.

Oh my, I sound like Stelek? Tit for tat, my spelling joke, you caught me on persecuted, touche!

(I like Stelek's style!)

Janthkin wrote:I am concerned here with the law, rather than "will I get in trouble if I do this?" As I noted previously, I don't care about people's opinions of recasting, I just don't want people walking away from the thread with misconceptions about what the law actually is.

Interesting, well then perhaps our concerns are not that different. I invite you to simplify your argument to yes or no: is the recasting I have been advocating (for non proffit artistic personal use) illegal? Is the recasting described in the original post illegal?

I'm not trying to pigeon hole you into a quotable gotcha, just to get a strait answer. If you are saying that one could get into trouble recasting I certainly wouldn't disagree, but if you are saying that any reporoudction under any circumstances is ilegal I certainly challenege that. Furthermore I advocate that given everything said so far, limited recasting for personal use, under the contexts previously described, and originally proposed in the thread is perfectly legal, ethical and moraly acceptable.

Janthkin wrote:(As far as finding cases goes, you've got access to the same tools I do - Google doesn't suck, and Lexus offers free searches of their database (just don't download any documents - take the case name, and search for it on Google).)

This sounds like a very long no. What if I were to counter your argumet earlier with "Have you ever been able to find a prosecuted recasting case (that did not involve proffit or marketplace damages) because I looked and couldn't find any?" How would you respond?

EDIT for mistakes on Quote tag.

Polonius wrote:

Iorek wrote:I'm highly amused that people are arguing with the IP attorney.

Woooo!

I don't know about you, but in any debate between an expert in the field and a guy who is utterly convinced about his position, I'm going with the guy that seems more certain.

Polonius, just because they are lawyers doesn't make them right.

(Besides isn't this fun and educational?)

Augustus wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Iorek wrote:I'm highly amused that people are arguing with the IP attorney.

Woooo!

I don't know about you, but in any debate between an expert in the field and a guy who is utterly convinced about his position, I'm going with the guy that seems more certain.

Polonius, just because they are lawyers doesn't make them right.

(Besides isn't this fun and educational?)

It doesn't make it right, but it makes it hard for you to understand his answers. Janthkin can't answer your question with a straight yes or no because this question has never been resolved. It's like making a mix tape: it's most likely an impoper use of protected material, but who on earth is going to actually litigate that case, much less to the point where it goes to an appeals court (where the vast majority of reported cases come from). For such a case to be published, the series of events would occur something like this:

somebody makes the copy

GW notices

GW sends Cease and Desist

Duper ignores the letter

GW sues for violation of IP

Duper refuses to settle, takes the case to Federal district court.

Whoever wins decides to appeal.

A circuit court decides to hear the case.

At virtually every step along the way, the odds of the event occuring are staggeringly low. If there's no money on the table, why wouldn't you simply cease and desist?

No lawyer can answer a question like this with any certainty, which is why Janthkin can't simply give you a yes or no. I think your legal base for saying that such actions as the OP suggested are legal are weak. Fair use exists as a counterbalance to standard Copyrights. Copyrights exist to protect creative works so that it encourages such work. Fair use steps in where such actions would actually hurt progress and creative works, most notably in criticism, education, etc. Personal use, on it's own has not yet fallen into that category. If you were able to produce case law that shows that personal use has qualified as fair use, you'd have an argument, but Janthkin has produced case law showing that such use would require a broadening of current law. Keep in mind that general rules are usually interpreted broadly, while exceptions are interpreted narrowly.

Augustus wrote:

Janthkin wrote:I am concerned here with the law, rather than "will I get in trouble if I do this?" As I noted previously, I don't care about people's opinions of recasting, I just don't want people walking away from the thread with misconceptions about what the law actually is.

Interesting, well then perhaps our concerns are not that different. I invite you to simplify your argument to yes or no: is the recasting I have been advocating (for non proffit artistic personal use) illegal? Is the recasting described in the original post illegal?

I'm not trying to pigeon hole you into a quotable gotcha, just to get a strait answer. If you are saying that one could get into trouble recasting I certainly wouldn't disagree, but if you are saying that any reporoudction under any circumstances is ilegal I certainly challenege that. Furthermore I advocate that given everything said so far, limited recasting for personal use, under the contexts previously described, and originally proposed in the thread is perfectly legal, ethical and moraly acceptable.

"What is truth?" /handwash

There are actual reasons why lawyers don't hop into public forums and start tossing around straight yes-no opinions; it's not all just professional wishy-washiness. But if I had a hypothetical client who suggested doing actions such as those laid out in the OP and wanted an opinion on legality, I would counsel them that what they propose appears to be copyright infringement, and none of the applicable defenses apply.

No, I'm not saying "any reproduction == illegal." There are a number of limitations on the copyright owner's rights defined in the statute, and a couple more in caselaw. But I can't see how any of them apply here.

Janthkin wrote:(As far as finding cases goes, you've got access to the same tools I do - Google doesn't suck, and Lexus offers free searches of their database (just don't download any documents - take the case name, and search for it on Google).)

This sounds like a very long no. What if I were to counter your argumet earlier with "Have you ever been able to find a prosecuted recasting case (that did not involve proffit or marketplace damages) because I looked and couldn't find any?" How would you respond?

Lamentably, my time is not completely my own, and the open-ended question of "are there any cases involving 3d reproductions?", while interesting, isn't something I can answer in 5 minutes.

I would, however, assert that the burden falls on the person advocating some action which appears in conflict with the written law. We know what the copyright owner's rights are. We know that recasting falls within those rights. You suggest that "fair use" offers a blanket defense - I wondered if you had reason to believe that, beyond a (IMO) flawed reading of 107.

Iorek wrote:I'm highly amused that people are arguing with the IP attorney.

Woooo!

I need the practice; most of my work is arguing in written form.

*EDIT originally written in response to Palonius

Wow, what a great read, well written sir, thank you.

I found some very interesting quotes on wikipedia (I know) for common misconceptions, look at these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Noncommercial use is invariably fair. Not true, though a judge may take the profit motive or lack thereof into account. In L.A. Times v. Free Republic, the court found that the noncommercial use of L.A. Times content by the Free Republic Web site was in fact not fair use, since it allowed the public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for.

If you're copying an entire work, it's not fair use. While copying an entire work may make it harder to justify the amount and substantiality test, it does not make it impossible that a use is fair use. For instance, in the Betamax case, it was ruled that copying a complete television show for time-shifting purposes is fair use.

Not part of what I was advocating but still interesting:

If you're selling for profit, it's not fair use. While commercial copying for profit work may make it harder to qualify as fair use, it does not make it impossible. For instance, in the 2 Live Crew—Oh, Pretty Woman case, it was ruled that commercial parody can be fair use.

Janthkin wrote:Lamentably, my time is not completely my own, and the open-ended question of "are there any cases involving 3d reproductions?", while interesting, isn't something I can answer in 5 minutes.

Granted, of course. I am earnestly interested however, if you did find one, at some point in the future. I have never heard of it, but then, I have never heard of a lot of things.

Janthkin wrote:I need the practice; most of my work is arguing in written form.

Me too.

No one is asking the important question here...

Why haven't you posted pictures of this super-rare and super-awesome army? I need moar pikz plx!

I'm going to take this unusual ( ) opportunity to agree with Typeline.

Augustus wrote:*EDIT originally written in response to Palonius

Wow, what a great read, well written sir, thank you.

I found some very interesting quotes on wikipedia (I know) for common misconceptions, look at these:

snip

Well, I hope it helped. Not a lot of people really understand how civil law works. it's not like criminal law, where there is a crime and a punishment. Civil law is a way of working out disagreements, and even among those disagreements that lead to legal action (i.e. lawyers are retained, complaints are filed) almost none of them go to trial (it can be as low as 3-5% are actually litigated), and of those, hardly any actually get an appeal. As a general rule, the less money is on the table, and the bigger the entity, the more likely settlement is. Why? Litigation is expensive as well as unpredictable. It's usually cheaper in the long run to settle 10 cases then to try all 10 and lose half of them.

As for misconceptions, I think IP laws are even more mispercieved by people than age of consent laws (another prime area of negative knowledge). One of the big problems is that Fair Use allows for some things, such as parody, that don't seem really worthy of protection. Most of those cases were decided under 1st amendment principles, and allowing for satire is important.

Stelek wrote:Legally, you aren't doing anything wrong--despite all the claims otherwise.

GW can tell you to take your 'fakes' and get out of events they run, but they don't prosecute (or even threaten it) unless you intend to sell their figures AND claim they are original.

Aside from unlicensed duplication of copyrighted works to avoid legally acquiring product, no, there's nothing wrong.

Actually, GW can confiscate those fakes on the spot if they have reasonable suspicion that they are copies. And then use them as evidence to sue you based on statutory damages (similar to how the RIAA and EA extract hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlement for tens of dollars of infringement).
_____

Come to think of it, that would be an awesome way to extract max scores out of one's opponent at a RTT...

Orlanth wrote:

Stelek wrote:You have noticed all the scratch-built titans that ARE costing GW money, and they don't give a flying .

They are encouraging scratchbuilding, the scratchbuilds are you property and you can sell them.

*Exactly*. Scratchbuilds are completely different from ording a new Warhound Titan from Forgeworld, and then duplicating it.

Janthkin wrote:No, it isn't. Can you find ONE case where "Fair Use" is an applicable defense for duplication of a tangible sculpture? I can't, and I have looked.

As I noted above, none of the "four factors" in a fair use analysis are individually dispositive.

From a cursory reading, *NONE* of the "four factors" are met by recasting. Therefore, there is no "fair use".
____

From my post on Btown on a related topic:

I'm now going to go through the 4-factor test for personal copying (en masse).

..., the fair use of a copyrighted work, ..., for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use) , scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Emphasis added to note that the protected fair uses are typically educational or informative in nature, and generally related to First Amendment-type rights. Personal duplication has no educational or informative value whatsoever. FAIL

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

The purpose is to avoid paying the copyright holder and deprive the copyright holder of their normal sales revenue. It is anti-commerical, with no educational purpose whatsoever. FAIL

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

We are talking about commercial toys with a specific likeness / design that are sold in volume to consumers. debatable, but likely FAIL

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

In general, the less that one copies, the more likely it is protected. In this case, we are talking about copying in toto. The copier is expected to exercise some due level of judgment in determining how much of the original work is to be copied, but no discretion is being demonstrated. FAIL

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Limited market impact beyond the purchase of the copyrighted master, however, it is fair to note that the copyrighted toy is intended to be sold and purchased in quantity by the consumer, based on a rules system that requires large numbers of such items. If one permits the "slippery slope" argument (which is generally valid, as failure to enforce copyright allows it to lapse), then if everyone did it, the copyright owner would go out of business. likely FAIL

Based on the 4-factor test for Fair Use, personal copying of any significance seems to fail on the merits.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Actually, GW can confiscate those fakes on the spot if they have reasonable suspicion that they are copies. And then use them as evidence to sue you based on statutory damages (similar to how the RIAA and EA extract hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlement for tens of dollars of infringement).

I don't think so. They can to call the authorities just like anyone else, they don't have the right to take your property away on the basis they are suspicious about it. You can't just take stuff from a person's house because you think they stole it from you, you have to do things through legal channels.

If you're stupid enough to say that you recast the minis, GW can and will confiscate them.

If it's a recast - *NEWSFLASH* - it's NOT your property. It's GW's.
____

Well, technically, GW *can* go the through the police, with the note that you will be sued to the tune of $100k+ worth of legal fees trying to prove that you have the right to break the law.

Or, you can do the easy thing and hand over the models on the spot.

Personally, I'd love to see GW make an example of somebody (i.e. drive into bankruptcy, seize house and car) simply to put this issue to bed.

However, it appears that when *real* money is on the line, nobody is willing to challenge GW on the law.

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you're stupid enough to say that you recast the minis, GW can and will confiscate them.

Well, technically, GW *can* go the through the police, with the note that you will be sued to the tune of $100k+ worth of legal fees trying to prove that you have the right to break the law.

Or, you can do the easy thing and hand over the models on the spot

So they can't confiscate them then. With only an accusation they can only ask for you to comply and hand them over.

No one can take things off anyone unless they have a court order or are part of authorities with those powers, like the police or HM Customs.

Hey Yakface, close the thread before Janthkin bills Dakka for his legal services

Howard A Treesong wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you're stupid enough to say that you recast the minis, GW can and will confiscate them.

Well, technically, GW *can* go the through the police, with the note that you will be sued to the tune of $100k+ worth of legal fees trying to prove that you have the right to break the law.

Or, you can do the easy thing and hand over the models on the spot

So they can't confiscate them then. With only an accusation they can only ask for you to comply and hand them over.

No one can take things off anyone unless they have a court order or are part of authorities with those powers, like the police or HM Customs.

So what if the minis I buy off ebay happen to be forgeries? Formally we cannot tell but there are a lot of Armorcast Warhounds floating out there, some are suspiciously cheap. I have a friend with one and am getting one myself, different source.

Now a lot of the Armorcast stuff on eBay today are knock offs. What in practicality, as opposed to theory will happen:

1. Can GW request/demand handing over of a suspected duplicate Armorcast model, or can only Armorcast do that?

2. Is this buying 'stolen' goods or any other offense under law?

Orlanth wrote:2. Is this buying 'stolen' goods or any other offense under law?

To knowing receive stolen goods is an offence. If you bought in good faith but were misled that's a different thing.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Orlanth wrote:2. Is this buying 'stolen' goods or any other offense under law?

To knowing receive stolen goods is an offence. If you bought in good faith but were misled that's a different thing.

Thankyou, but that only really answers half of that question, though the more important half as it clears the buyer.
Are bootleg goods 'stolen', thus does this law apply, and therefore are the goods subject to confiscation?

Bootlegs? I think they do count as contraband, whatever it's definition is.

Generally speaking, you need to have someone's permission to pass on, utilise or sell their words, lyrics and comments. People interviewed in the street for the News? They sign a contract, and so on.

Now, Bootlegs do not carry that authorisation, so it is illegal. I think.

I don't *know* but I have an *idea*!

yeah...
Still no slann pictures... rubbish thread...

Panic...

Well, to satiate the crowds of the curious, here are some images of a similar example to what I have been talking about. They are NOT SLAAN guys, they are classic OOP Eldar I used kit bashed limited recasting combined with original models to complete.

I think they are a great example of the kind of artistic merrit products I have been advocating all along.

It is my hope that the community will agree! For your review: Harlequin Jetbikes:

Painted images coming over the weekend, just don't have them uploaded yet.

yeah,
Augustus, From the OP's post, the problem I have is the OP hasn't kitbashed he's made copies of whole modified Slann.

He admits having a excess of slann models, but is still recasting whole models. not just the parts needed to complete a conversion. which is something more than a means to a end.

By casting Slann instead of going out and buying them he has in a way cooled that market, meaning that someone selling their prized collection of Slann will get a lower price for it...

also if GW were to have Looked and seen the higher prices of slann on eBay they might of had concidered re-releaseing them again. So he has possibily hurt the community as a whole.

He's come here to find out what his peers think of what he done. and counter to his point ~that he doesn't care what we think~ I think he does, why else ask in such a detailed manor as he did?

and while some of his Peers think what he's done is OK. I and some others clearly do not...

I myself am capabile of recasting, I have pints of both silicone and resin. when I need a small part that is unavailable, I'll make a copy.

There is a massive difference between
A)coping a shoulder pad for your LOTD squad conversions &
B)coping a whole LOTD marine.

When I make my next project, Chaos Obliterators I hate both the old and new model. I will sculpt and cast my own legs and possibly bodies, but I'll not copy GW IP, I'll use multiple actual GW weapons and other parts i'll not make copies of them... It would be easy for me to make one obliterator including the GW IP and then cast 9 but I'm not going to do that.

I still want to see his army thou...

PaniC..

Panic wrote:yeah,
There is a massive difference between
A)coping a shoulder pad for your LOTD squad conversions &
B)coping a whole LOTD marine.

Is there? After Janthkins comments, and the research I did I honestly don't know. It seems like it would put more weight on the issue of % copied certainly but that in a vacuum is not enough to determine fair use. After all this talk I think it is a clearly a case by case issue.

I just decided to post some recast pics I had done to demonstrate the results of what I was advocating and to satiate the image hungry.

Copyright is partly judged on the amount of original IP copied, and also the importance to the derivative work.

For example, Vanilla Ice's hit "Ice Ice Baby" copied only a single seven note phrase out of a Queen hit, but the judge considered the phrase was so integral to the Vanilla Ice song that it was accounted plagiarism.

(Compare this with The Chiffons vs George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord".)

Accordingly, it is impossible to tell in advance if you would get away with copying just a shoulder pad rather than a whole figure. If the LoTD pads are paricularly characteristic in their design, it will weigh against you. (A standard SM shoulder pad is just a section of a blunted ogive, and not in itself coyrightable.)

Right, leaving everything in the grey...

Blunted Ogive? Uh, ok.

Augustus wrote:Right, leaving everything in the grey...

Blunted Ogive? Uh, ok.

It has been pointed out before that cases are judged on their merits, so it is difficult or impossible to predict what a result would be. It's like that, because that's the way it is, and it's useless to complain about it.

Anyway, you don't think these things will come to court, so why worry?

You'll find ogive in the dictionary.

Did you think I was complaining?

Trying to decide if this is a shot:

"dictionary"

thanks a lot, I am sure it is.

I was making attributions, which are often wrong, but it's part of our psychology to do it.

Augustus wrote:

Panic wrote:yeah,
There is a massive difference between
A)coping a shoulder pad for your LOTD squad conversions &
B)coping a whole LOTD marine.

Is there? After Janthkins comments, and the research I did I honestly don't know. It seems like it would put more weight on the issue of % copied certainly but that in a vacuum is not enough to determine fair use. After all this talk I think it is a clearly a case by case issue.

I just decided to post some recast pics I had done to demonstrate the results of what I was advocating and to satiate the image hungry.

Bingo. Nearly everything is a case-by-case analysis, at least partly because of what Polonius noted above - the number of exact fact patterns that actually get adjudicated on the merits is SMALL. (And yes, I wrote small in big letters.)

For what it's worth, I'd be more wary of copying LoTD shoulderpads than blank metal ones, as the LoTD ones carry a complete artwork on them. This is not to say you should rush out and copy blank shoulderpads, either....

As an attorney, I wanna say kudos to Janthkin for handling this issue as professionally as he has. While, I practice chiefly in litigation, I have done a good bit of IP work as well. My understanding is the same as his. In this instance, given these facts, this is illegal. Whether or not a civil action is imminent is irrelevant to that determination.

As an aside, I am always astonished when non-lawyers presume to know the law on a given subject after a simple reading of a code section. The legal training that lawyers receive in law school goes beyond simply learning the law. It’s analogous to learning a new language, and it is exceeding complex. I'm not trying to be an elitist, but there is a reason why every state in the US requires attorneys to pass a licensing exam after attending law school, and why most prosecute people for practicing law without a license.

Brice

Augustus wrote:Did you think I was complaining?

Trying to decide if this is a shot:

"dictionary"

thanks a lot, I am sure it is.

in the dictionary I mean, not is a shot, which well...

BBeale wrote:As an attorney, I wanna say kudos to Janthkin ...

Sure.

BBeale wrote:My understanding is the same as his. In this instance, given these facts, this is illegal. Whether or not a civil action is imminent is irrelevant to that determination.

But thats not what he said, he said he would advise against it, hypotheticaly.

BBeale wrote:...non-lawyers presume to know the law on a given subject after a simple reading of a code section.

...are you refering to me?

Would you say the context I have shown is ilegal? Or are you refering to the duplication of an entire piece in the OP?

[joke]
Wow, I thought RULES lawyers were tough, but REAL lawyers, man.
[/joke]

At least you haven't met a REAL fluff bunny in real life.

The sharp pointy would tear off your head.

Augustus,

The code section quip wasn't entirely directed at you. It just happens to be a real pet peeve of mine. Everytime you go to a party there's someone who "asks" you a legal question only to tell you what the "law" is based upon someone else's experience, an e-mail, a quick reading of the code, some quasi-historical basis, chicken bones, etc. Sorry for the extra bile.

That said, any opinion I give based upon your hypothetical would be malpractice--It's not my area of practice and I don't have the energy to get up to speed on it right now since I'm fighting deadlines in another case at the moment. Though it may suffice to say, any time a lawyer says, "I would advise against that", he or she should be taken as saying, "Dude, you're screwing up and it will cost you money/put you in jail." In this context, I think Janthkin's posts let you know where you stand without putting him out on a limb for offering legal advice. I don't want to put words in his mouth or give real advice myself, so. . .

Brice

Indeed, well said, sorry if that came off as a set up or jibe.

Augustus,

No worries at all. At the end of the day, legal issues and ethics aside, I think this is a neat undertaking, same with your harlequins. And while it probably does fall under the equitable umbrella of "no harm, no foul", I'd hate to see anyone get into any trouble-I'm paid to be cautious, but I aknowledge that the risk is small.

Brice

BBeale wrote: I'm not trying to be an elitist, but there is a reason why every state in the US requires attorneys to pass a licensing exam after attending law school, and why most prosecute people for practicing law without a license.

Brice

really?
Call me ignorant if I'm wrong... but I thought you only had to pass the bar to practice law. I didn't know that law school was a legally enforced part of the process.
I mean, sure. It's TRADITIONAL... but I didn't think it was required.



Eric

IGNORANT!!! Just playing, a lot of people have know idea of the hoops you have to jump through to get licensed to practice. But yes, you have to be a law school graduate and have a Juris Doctorate (yes, some attorneys actually refer to one another as Dr. [insert last name]-highly annoying) to be eligible to sit for the bar in every state as far as I know. Most states, California being the exception I know of, require that the law school be accredited by the American Bar Association. Historically, this wasn't true, but complexities in modern law along with state bars trying to better police membership and ensure quality necessitate this approach.

In Texas, where I practice, there is a lengthy background investigation period before a law school student is approved to sit for the bar. It involves an FBI background check, finger prints, etc. Traditionally, this is done in the last year of law school, which lead some people I know to not being allowed to sit for the bar after making it through, and more importantly paying for, law school. Texas also requires all potential attorneys to take and pass an ethics exam before being admitted to practice-the Texas Professional Responsibility Exam. All of this takes place even before you get the privilege (sarcasm) of sitting for the 3 day Texas Bar, which by all accounts is one of the toughest in the country. Additionally, there are continuing education requirements (15 hours per year in Texas), bar fees and dues, state occupation taxes, etc, etc...

BBeale wrote:IGNORANT!!! Just playing, a lot of people have know idea of the hoops you have to jump through to get licensed to practice. But yes, you have to be a law school graduate and have a Juris Doctorate (yes, some attorneys actually refer to one another as Dr. [insert last name]-highly annoying) to be eligible to sit for the bar in every state as far as I know. Most states, California being the exception I know of, require that the law school be accredited by the American Bar Association. Historically, this wasn't true, but complexities in modern law along with state bars trying to better police membership and ensure quality necessitate this approach.

In Texas, where I practice, there is a lengthy background investigation period before a law school student is approved to sit for the bar. It involves an FBI background check, finger prints, etc. Traditionally, this is done in the last year of law school, which lead some people I know to not being allowed to sit for the bar after making it through, and more importantly paying for, law school. Texas also requires all potential attorneys to take and pass an ethics exam before being admitted to practice-the Texas Professional Responsibility Exam. All of this takes place even before you get the privilege (sarcasm) of sitting for the 3 day Texas Bar, which by all accounts is one of the toughest in the country. Additionally, there are continuing education requirements (15 hours per year in Texas), bar fees and dues, state occupation taxes, etc, etc...

Just for reference, as I didn't learn this until I moved to CA after law school - there are 3 tiers of law school in CA: ABA accredited, CA accredited, and "other." If you're not attending an ABA or CA accredited school, you have to take and pass the "baby bar" (the First-Year Law Students’ Examination) before you can even sit for the normal bar (which is also a lovely 3 day event and includes one of the few "practical" portions in the country).

As an added bonus, because CA is wierd and lets people from non-ABA schools take the bar, CA has zero reciprocity with other states, so if I want to practice elsewhere, I'll "get" to take another bar exam. Joy. Though the CLE requirements are lighter here - 25 hours every 3 years.

Just to be clear, I wasn't taking a jab at the California Bar. By all accounts, in part due to the differences in accredited schools there (as far as I understand it), California has THE most difficult bar in the US. It is really unfortunate that you don't benefit from reciprocity though. . .

Brice

BBeale wrote:Just to be clear, I wasn't taking a jab at the California Bar. By all accounts, in part due to the differences in accredited schools there (as far as I understand it), California has THE most difficult bar in the US. It is really unfortunate that you don't benefit from reciprocity though. . .

Brice

No offense taken - just sharing the info, as it's some obscure stuff.

Wasn't Louisiana the last state to actually require a JD? In the movie Catch me if you Can, the main character takes and passes the bar, even without going to law school.

I always considered similar to CD/DVD copying.

From what I thought, CD copies were legal. You are allowed to backup what you paid for. Copying a new music CD for use in your car for instance. So the original isn't damaged.

The problem comes when more then one copy is in use at any given time. Loaned to a friend for instance.

If the OP is in fact, only looking for weapons options, then he may find refuge in this.
As long as the number of models he has in use at any time does not surpass the number of originals he owns.

Yes, that is a recast. But here is the original I own. The one I use is a backup.

Polonius wrote:Wasn't Louisiana the last state to actually require a JD? In the movie Catch me if you Can, the main character takes and passes the bar, even without going to law school.

Louisiana is an odd state - it's the only CIVIL law state in the country; everyone else (including the feds) follow the English tradiition of common law.

HisDivineShadow wrote:I always considered similar to CD/DVD copying.

From what I thought, CD copies were legal. You are allowed to backup what you paid for. Copying a new music CD for use in your car for instance. So the original isn't damaged.

The problem comes when more then one copy is in use at any given time. Loaned to a friend for instance.

If the OP is in fact, only looking for weapons options, then he may find refuge in this.
As long as the number of models he has in use at any time does not surpass the number of originals he owns.

Yes, that is a recast. But here is the original I own. The one I use is a backup.

First, it's not completely settled what fair use "rights" attach to CD ownership - media shifting and backup copies may be okay, but the rulings relied on for that position have nothing to do with creating duplicate copies of physical objects, and everything to do with preserving access to licensed digital content.

(You do NOT, however, have a fair use right that covers media shifting DVDs - more specifically, you don't have a fair use right to get the tools needed in order to bypass the copy protection scheme protecting the DVD.)

BBeale wrote:IGNORANT!!!

okay. pwned.
Congrat's. You win DakkaDakka for today. LOL ; )

Seriously, though... I have to say... I'm really liking this thread.

1) I'm learning things I didn't know
2) I'm seeing differing moralities/ethics debated (I always like that, when it's done intelligently)
and (most importantly)
3) Even with all this disagreement, nobody has turned into an a-hole.

Congrats, Dakkites!

Eric

Janthkin wrote:

HisDivineShadow wrote:I always considered similar to CD/DVD copying.

From what I thought, CD copies were legal. You are allowed to backup what you paid for. Copying a new music CD for use in your car for instance. So the original isn't damaged.

First, it's not completely settled what fair use "rights" attach to CD ownership - media shifting and backup copies may be okay,

I go by what the RIAA themselves stated on their website, and have the web page archived to my computer, in case anyone asks.

From the RIAA site (http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/default.asp#stand).

What is your stand on MP3?

This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong! There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't make it right.

Emphasis added

As far as I'm concerned, if the RIAA at any point said it's OK, then it's OK in perpetuity. Once you give a right, you can't take it back.

Anyone who believes ANYTHING that the RIAA says deserves everything that they get.

Panic wrote:By casting Slann instead of going out and buying them he has in a way cooled that market, meaning that someone selling their prized collection of Slann will get a lower price for it...

You don't have a right to expect to sell your figures at collectors prices. Anyway, looking at it realistically one person choosing to recast their own stock in no way affects the value of things on eBay unless he chooses to flood the market with his recasts for sale. You chould make the same argument about someone who sculpts all their own figures and scratchbuilds their own vehicles.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Panic wrote:By casting Slann instead of going out and buying them he has in a way cooled that market, meaning that someone selling their prized collection of Slann will get a lower price for it...

You don't have a right to expect to sell your figures at collectors prices. Anyway, looking at it realistically one person choosing to recast their own stock in no way affects the value of things on eBay unless he chooses to flood the market with his recasts for sale. You chould make the same argument about someone who sculpts all their own figures and scratchbuilds their own vehicles.

A legal owner of an original item has the right to expect that the price he might get for it is not affected by the presence in the market of illegal copies. This applies to GW or someone who has bought their items.

You couldn't make the same argument about self-sculpted figures because they would not be illegal copies.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Panic wrote:By casting Slann instead of going out and buying them he has in a way cooled that market, meaning that someone selling their prized collection of Slann will get a lower price for it...

You don't have a right to expect to sell your figures at collectors prices. Anyway, looking at it realistically one person choosing to recast their own stock in no way affects the value of things on eBay unless he chooses to flood the market with his recasts for sale. You chould make the same argument about someone who sculpts all their own figures and scratchbuilds their own vehicles.

A legal owner of an original item has the right to expect that the price he might get for it is not affected by the presence in the market of illegal copies. This applies to GW or someone who has bought their items.

You couldn't make the same argument about self-sculpted figures because they would not be illegal copies.

They're not entering the market though.

I was refuting your point that collectors should not expect to receive fair market value for their collectable items, and showing that it is a different case to competition from scratch-built items.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
They're not entering the market though.

Yeah,
but your not entering the market either.
If your casting your not competing with someone else for them on the open market, your not helping establish the current going rate. so the rate drops...
and slann become undervalued and sell for less than they should, all because your making illegal copies..

We could all make copies, but we don't, It's selfish...

PaniC..

I'm going to chime in here. Why is scratch building being considered differently from recasting? They are both duplicating items, it's just that the method is different. If you were to sculpt a facsimile of a GW figure yourself, how is this different than scratchbuilding? Greenstuffing details again is just a subset of sculpting the whole figure. It seems to me that if GW allows and in fact encourages scratchbuilding, converting, greenstuffing, and sculpting for personal use, they have de facto given permission to make a cast for personal use.

asmith wrote:I'm going to chime in here. Why is scratch building being considered differently from recasting? They are both duplicating items, it's just that the method is different. If you were to sculpt a facsimile of a GW figure yourself, how is this different than scratchbuilding? Greenstuffing details again is just a subset of sculpting the whole figure. It seems to me that if GW allows and in fact encourages scratchbuilding, converting, greenstuffing, and sculpting for personal use, they have de facto given permission to make a cast for personal use.

Except, of course, for the minor detail of them NOT giving permission to recast. Nor have I seen them ever suggest complete sculpting of your own space marines out of green stuff.

I'll try to make this very clear: a copyright holder has a LOT of rights, and a LOT of freedom to decide which rights he wants to share. There is no legal basis, implied or otherwise, to take GW's permission to perform one otherwise-infringing act, and extend it to a completely different act.

I'll think you'll agree they have given permission to copy for personal use. Are you saying they can specify the manner used for copying?

asmith wrote:I'll think you'll agree they have given permission to copy for personal use.

Where?

asmith wrote: Are you saying they can specify the manner used for copying?

The copyright holder can grant or withhold specific rights as he likes.

You can look all this stuff up on the various government copyright sites.

They give permission to copy everytime they publish a tutorial showing you how to sculpt a purity seal or a ultramarine badge. They show scratchbuilds made by customers in their literature. Every golden demon they cover has minatures that are all sculpting or more sculpting than bits. In each of these cases they are giving approval to copy all or parts of miniatures for personal use. Maybe they aren't saying this specifically, but they are aware of it and encourage it.

I agree a copyright holder can grant specific rights as he likes, such as "you may copy all or parts of this miniature for personal use". I'm not aware however that he can say, "you can copy all or part of this miniature but only if you use GW brand sculpting tools which have been dipped in Castrol Sintec # 23 brand oil".

They can specify these types of things in contracts if they like, to people whom they have granted the right to copy, but since they have not done this I don't see how they can put limits on it further than: "you can copy all or parts of this figure for personal use" or "no copying of any kind is permissable"

Maybe you can look this stuff up on various government copyright sites for me.

asmith wrote:They give permission to copy everytime they publish a tutorial showing you how to sculpt a purity seal or a ultramarine badge. They show scratchbuilds made by customers in their literature. Every golden demon they cover has minatures that are all sculpting or more sculpting than bits. In each of these cases they are giving approval to copy all or parts of miniatures for personal use. Maybe they aren't saying this specifically, but they are aware of it and encourage it.

I agree a copyright holder can grant specific rights as he likes, such as "you may copy all or parts of this miniature for personal use". I'm not aware however that he can say, "you can copy all or part of this miniature but only if you use GW brand sculpting tools which have been dipped in Castrol Sintec # 23 brand oil".

They can specify these types of things in contracts if they like, to people whom they have granted the right to copy, but since they have not done this I don't see how they can put limits on it further than: "you can copy all or parts of this figure for personal use" or "no copying of any kind is permissable"

Maybe you can look this stuff up on various government copyright sites for me.

If you can't see the distinction between "You can chop up the models you purchased from us to make conversions" and "Feel free to make as many copies of the single model you purchased from us as you might wish," then I cannot help you.

I don't know if you are being purposefully obtuse or not. I am talking about about complete scratchbuilds, sculpts and conversions on which GW copyrighted material is added via greenstuff or another method. All three of which are permitted by GW. If I'm missing something please explain it to me.

If I make a scratchbuilt or modified model and take it to GW they can say "Yes that's great" or "Heresy, burn the witch" and it does not affect Joe Blow's rights (or lack of) to make a different model.

If GW have granted users the right to make their own purity seals (which let's face it are basically rosettes and have no intrinsic IP) that does not grant users the right to cast Terminator assault guns or whatever.

The copyright proprietor can grant limited licences on a case by case basis.

That's sort of my point, they aren't granting licences they have opened it to everyone in the GW hobby to make copies of GW material for personal use. Are you saying they can come in after the fact and disallow certain instances? So it's ok for one guy to do a complete sculpt for his own use and not another person?

asmith wrote:That's sort of my point, they aren't granting licences they have opened it to everyone in the GW hobby to make copies of GW material for personal use. Are you saying they can come in after the fact and disallow certain instances? So it's ok for one guy to do a complete sculpt for his own use and not another person?

You need individual written permission from the IP holder to copy or modify something.

I don't know the details of how GW run all these competitions and so on. Presumably they put something like "Create an Ork War Buggy using a Trukk chassis and the best will be featured in WD." That would be considered permission to use a Trukk chassis to create a modified Buggy for the purpose of the WD competition. It would not grant the OP rights to recast Slann heavy weapon crews.

Purity seals are not a good example of granting rights because they are so generic a design there cannot be any IP in them. Something original and specific like a multi-melter has got original IP in it.

Sculpts are a more complicated case because anyone can sculpt a figure and it is their original IP. The human body can pose a number of different ways. GW don't have a copyright on the standard fist-waving, shouty marine pose. However, they do have copyright on the various characteristic armour and equipment designs. So yes, you can sculpt a figure that looks like a space marine, but you need to make sure it doesn't look too much like a space marine. In case of a dispute, the court would decide whether the sculptor had gone over the line.

Given how paranoid GW are about IP rights, and how enthusiastic about enfording them, you've got to know they are not going to give everyone in the world permission to make copies of their stuff they are trying to sell.

No, Asmith, what everyone is saying, and what the law supports, is the individual owner of the IP can grant a specific license for whatever they choose to whomever they choose to. Whether or not you think that license is consistent with other non-licensed uses is irrelevant--you don't own the IP. GW has tacitly approved a limited license for the community to "convert" their models--this is a business decision that they have made, not a legal one. So far they have even allowed complete sculpts to be made of their IP by third parties for extremely limited uses. They are free to limit how their IP is used and determine the scope of the license they want to grant. That said, there's a huge difference between sculpting a purity seal, creating from scratch a model not available in the range for personal use, or any number of conversions, and the wholesale copying of an existing model for personal or commercial use. There's no point in being obtuse about it.

Brice

Please explain to me how copying a model via sculpting is different than copying a model via casting if they are both used for the same purpose i.e. the creation of a model for conversion for use in a personal army. If I'm being obtuse I really can't see it. To me they are identical situations.

@ killcrazy:

There are no licenses granted for things like the golden demon competition. It is an open call.

I'll give you a different example. Let's say I make an ultramarines army and sculpt a shoulderpad with an ultramarine symbol and a double headed imperial eagle. I can sculpt it once and cast it 100 times, or I can sculpt it 100 times for each model in my army. You, bbeale, and janthkin are saying this is illegal unless I am mistaking your position.

Technically in the second case you have infringed the copyright of the original sculpt, whereas in the first case you have infringed the copyright of the design of the figure.

The difference here can be explained by the example of the purity seal.

A purity seal, as I have said twice before, is a rosette. You will see rosettes on prize marrows and bulls at agricultural shows, and on political candidates and supporters during elections. It is a completely generic design and anyone can make one for themselves or make a miniature copy of it without permission.

However, if you cast a seal from a mould made from GW's seal model, you have infringed on the copyright work done by their sculptor to create that seal.

asmith wrote:@ killcrazy:

There are no licenses granted for things like the golden demon competition. It is an open call.

I'll give you a different example. Let's say I make an ultramarines army and sculpt a shoulderpad with an ultramarine symbol and a double headed imperial eagle. I can sculpt it once and cast it 100 times, or I can sculpt it 100 times for each model in my army. You, bbeale, and janthkin are saying this is illegal unless I am mistaking your position.

Golden Demon in effect issues limited licenses for the purpose of creating models for entry to Golden Demon. (There may well be written conditions published for the Golden Demon.) I think it is unlikely that a court would decide that was equivalent to granting a licence to all users to make as many copies of anything as they like. However it would be for the court to decide, if a dispute arose.

The case of the shoulder pads is quite complicated because the shoulder pad is a blunted ogive (a standard geometric solid,) the Ultra symbol is an upside down Omega and the double-headed eagle has been a feature of military iconography for several thousand years. Thus none of these items in itself has any copyright. If the case came to court, GW would no doubt argue that the combination of these features together with other characteristic features such as SM armour and so on, that constitutes new copyrighted material. The court might not agree.

Janthkin and I have both been saying that copyright cases are often difficult if not impossible to pre-judge, and that the court will decide each case on its merits.

My point is that unless GW themselves have issued a statement one way or the other I don't see how they can allow one and not the other. It's not debatable that they allow copying of ip for sculpting and conversions, not only do they allow it, they encourage it. To me this is the equivalent of giving permission to do this kind of work for personal use.

the golden demon is just an example where this kind of work is given an offical promotion. It is also generally encouraged as part of the hobby.

They can allow one and not the other because it is their IP and they have the right to choose how they wish to protect it. Full stop. They don't have to issue a statement, and ignorance of the law is not a defense.

That said, GW has made it clear over the years that casting copies of their miniatures is an infringement on their IP and any licenses they have granted or have been assumed to have granted. I think at the heart of this issue we're talking about copying versus artistic interpretation--GW has chosen to promote interpretation of their IP, and they have never encouraged copying.

Brice

asmith wrote:I am talking about about complete scratchbuilds, sculpts and conversions on which GW copyrighted material is added via greenstuff or another method. All three of which are permitted by GW.

All three are permitted in specific instances - not wholesale.

If you want to talk about how GW permits full scratchbuilds for things like Golden Daemon, then you also have to they are NOT legal for GW Tournament play because GW requires that models contain "a majority" of GW model parts. If it's a FSB, then there aren't *any* GW parts, so the model is illegal for Tournament play.

Similarly, when GW talk about allowable copying, the examples they use are things like Purity Seals - *small* elements compared to the model as a whole. GW has never promoted wholesale copying of entire models or large components. If you have an example, please share it.

BBeale wrote:we're talking about copying versus artistic interpretation--GW has chosen to promote interpretation of their IP, and they have never encouraged copying.

Brice

QFT.

And note that GW's stance here is easily defensible and consistent with applicable IP law. Artistic endeavors have far more cover as expressive "fair use" than non-artistic ones.

Janthkin wrote:

Polonius wrote:Wasn't Louisiana the last state to actually require a JD? In the movie Catch me if you Can, the main character takes and passes the bar, even without going to law school.

Louisiana is an odd state - it's the only CIVIL law state in the country; everyone else (including the feds) follow the English tradiition of common law.

That makes sense, it is the French method of judiciary. It would have been established and thus 'built in' with the Louisiana Purchase. Civic law is an inferior method for many reasons, but law is law if tradition and sides agree.

Sending things off at a Tangent, like a Prism before light, the Doc strikes!

With regard to back up copies of CDs and that....I once threw a party. My mate sat on one of my favorite CDs, snapping it.

Having finished drunkenly berating him and the gelatinous butt, I then read the insert, and the company apparently offered a replacement service. If I paid for P&P, and sent them the defunct disc, they'd send me a replacement....

yeah,

@ Asmith:
the difference is clear they allow conversions for stuff that they havn't got around to.

You can scratch build if there is no basis available to start with. they accept there is no basis for you to work off.
for example a WarLord Titan or Ork Stompa.

If i wanted to make Iyanna Arienal (a eldar character). I should start with a GW model, there are many available.

I Can buy a eldar guardian a warlock and a dark reaper and kit bash a character..
I Can also buy a eldar guardian and scratch build details ontop with GS eldar devices and charateristic eldar GS armour to create her.

I can not make resin copies of a guardian a warlock and a dark reaper and kit bash a character..
I can not make a resin copy of a Guardian and scratch build details ontop with GS eldar devices and charateristic GS armour to create her.
I can not start from scratch build from scratch a eldar character this is a total violation of their IP and is unreasonable since they have many eldar models on the market.

When it comes to small items you can make your own swords etc generic. you can not make Bolters they are GWIP.

The OP could have converted a Heavy weapons Arm made a mould of that Slann heavy weapon carring arm, and cast those.
Bought GW Slann models on eBay and Bought GW heavy weapons and converted a batch of Slann Heavy Weapon troopers.
But he copied whole models and thats stealing.

Ok
LoadingRant Program...
<RANT>

People know when they are doing wrong, when they are saving money, they just wanna see what they can squeeze for free...
And I think thats pretty gakky that they are willingly hurting the Hobby they claim to love.

Same thing as with people who pirate Games Music and Movies. your stealing. Your hurting the designers, artists , directors and actors.
I have a Friends in a band who released their own Album, they have printed 1000 copies and are struggling to sell those. and theres a dude on ebay selling copies of it undercutting the retail price!

Topware a PC Game company in the papers the other day who released a 3D Pinball game, the sold something like 800 copies, but could see that more than thousands of people downloaded their game for free from a download site like Pirate bay! Now If that games company folds due to lack of sales who is to blame?
from a online article:
Roger Billens, a partner at Davenport Lyons, said: “Our clients were incensed by the level of illegal downloading. In the first 14 days since Topware Interactive released Dream Pinball 3D it sold 800 legitimate copies but was illegally downloaded 12,000 times. Hopefully people will think twice if they risk being taken to court.”
they took one woman to court and she was fined £16,000 in damages for suppling it to a upload site. they have 500 more cases to push and i hope they fine everyone who uses these sites. scumbags.

Same thing with Army Builder from Lone Wolf, If they fold, I'll blame all those who share this program with their friends for free...

</RANT>

I'll say it again, There is No such thing as a VictimLess Crime...

PaniC...

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Sending things off at a Tangent, like a Prism before light, the Doc strikes!

You crap out rainbows?

It sounds like the CD thing is a way they're trying to make CDs more attractive than
tape dubs off the radio, but I imagine the offer is made in tiny tiny print.

No no no. I'm a sophisticared Prism, and in fact crap the Bat Signal.

Print wasn't that small either.

yeah,
I'm planning on casting my own Cities of death tiles, I Like lots of the ones GW have that they don't sell.
such as the ones in the Black templar codex page 62.

What's you thoughts on this idea...

Personnelly i sound like a hypocite but, i don't see the point in buying COD tile to remove all detail from them so i end up with grey retangles of plastic. then making my own detail...

If they turned out to be good what would the legal issue be on selling my own City of War tiles...

PAnic..