This has probably come up before, but I didn't want to trawl through the thousand odd posts on casting. I seen loads of videos on you tube etc of people making moulds and recasting miniatures. My two questions are:

1) If you have a miniature is it legal to recast it? (or are you infringing on copyright etc?)
2) And if it is legal - is it morally right to do it? (or is it stealing from the original manufacturer?)

What are everyones thoughts and opinions on this?

1) Generally speaking... it is illegal and you are infringing on copyright. Like with all other things there's a certain amount you can get away with (Say using GS to cast more of a specific accessory bit or icon). But using silicon and resin to make more space marines instead of buying them... that's worse, and if you then sell those copies on E-bay, well now you're looking at a visit from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and a discussion on the laws reguarding the sale of counterfiet goods ...

2) Depends on your morals. If you buy some official GW greenstuff, use it to make a mold of the cadian command sprue gas masks and then use those molds to to make more gasmasks from more GW greenstuff.. what do you think? Your money is all going to GW. But You aren't buying 100 command squad boxes to get those gasmasks. Also there's the matter of if you think it's still illegal if you don't get caught.

Yes it's definately illegal. While any kind of recasting is illegal you can get away with minor stuff and no one will care.

No one can judge whether it's moral but you. Some people think it is and other don't. In the end the only morals you need to care about are your own.

Thanks for your thoughts - I think I'll just stick to buying the stuff on e-bay!

Legal? Yes. For personal use.
Legal to resell? No.

Moral? Only you can decide that for yourself. If I were making a, say, wraithguard army, I would not think twice about casting my models. Nor would I if I needed 16 blasters that sell from bits sites for $7 each.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ghostofman wrote:1) Generally speaking... it is illegal and you are infringing on copyright.

4M2A wrote:Yes it's definately illegal.

False.

Personally I dont think casting small things like weapons and shoulder pads is anything wrong at all. Say you've got your own chapter and decide to scuplt a custom Shoulder Pad outa green-stuff, whats easier to do. Cast your scuplt including shoulder pad or rescuplt the lot?

Dont think casting entire models is a good idea tho

I'm not a lawyer, and thus my comments are not informed by a comprehensive understanding of IP law. Rather, I have built my understanding by reading the weekly "is casting legal?" thread for the past several years. People will swear up and down that it is illegal and the blackest of sins. Others will say that as long as chant the correct verses as you pour the resin, you'll be in the clear. Recasting warnings always remind me of the warnings on mattress tags that boldly claim that snipping tags is an offence punishable buy law. If you aren't familar, see link:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090227001250AAMFFd5

Also, the morality is best determined by you. Personally, I look at it as whether my actions would cause any real harm to anyone. Not theoretical harm, but real harm.

ph34r wrote:Legal? Yes. For personal use.

There's a great big grey area in the law there... although it's less grey in some countries than others.

From what I've read over the years, a more accurate answer though would be that at least in most western countries, recasting for personal use is technically illegal but you are unlikely to ever be prosecuted for it.


In the US, people like to cite the 'fair use' clause of their copyright laws as justification for recasting... but I've read comments from a number of IP lawyers that point out that Fair Use doesn't actually apply to this sort of situation.

It's only really once you start turning them into commercial products that you get into definite illegal territory, but like the above poster said it's a bit of a grey area. There's nothing to stop you taking a cast of a figure for yourself, just don't try selling it otherwise you may find yourself in a world of .

I recast things all the time. more specifically things that are now out of print or have been gone for a LONG time. I also re-cast things I make myself.

if I DO cast a stock part, its usually so that it can be modified to create something different.

I never sell anything I cast, and I never will unless its mine and I made it.

casting can be an excellent tool for making kit bash parts without destroying the origional, but its also messy, time consuming and pretty high cost by the time its all said and done.

quite honestly, for 16 weapons at $7 a piece, casting material is approx $25 for the trial size (adequate for a few marines or large weapons, the casting resin or material is about the same. you will need casting blocks and clay to do it properly, thats about another $15 at the right place. SO, now you're up to $65 in cost just to attempt to produce the parts.

whats your time worth? to buy them would cost you $122 including shipping. making them yourself assuming you have no errors producing the mold, will cost you $65 and roughtly 3 weeks to complete. (24 cure time per piece with 3 - 6 hours cure time for molds depending on what you buy etc etc)

granted, this is all an estimate. to me its worth it to make rare items that I can modify and spare the original a dismal fate if I mess up.

its all a perspective issue.

need 1000 marines? sure cast away and produce as many as you like. they are all going to be the same shape and stature and you'll look like a fool at any place I know of that we game.

in fact, while I was a red shirt, we had a kid that came in every day for about 2 months and asked to paint a demo piece. we didn't think anything of it. some kids can't afford the luxury and so we sat and taught him how to paint.

then we didn't see him for a while. 2 weeks later, he shows up with a couple nobs and some war trukks and ALL the demo pieces we let him paint. he was just abusing the demo pieces to have boyz he didn't have to pay for.

was it legal? absolutely. we gave them to him. no contest there.

was it moral, oh HELL no. and coming back into the store with them was just an insult to us and our good graces.

bottom line, I would suggest leaving duplicate items of the real thing at home for home use only if thats your plan, otherwise remember that people make a living on this. artists that sculpt the pieces, the writers etc etc.

this IS an industry as well. believe it or not, there isn't as much overhead on the models as you might think. from an insiders perspective into the GW structure, I can tell you they do not make as much profit as a company as you would think.

all just food for thought, YMMV.

happy gaming!

insaniak wrote:In the US, people like to cite the 'fair use' clause of their copyright laws as justification for recasting... but I've read comments from a number of IP lawyers that point out that Fair Use doesn't actually apply to this sort of situation.

Really? I have only ever heard internet IP lawyers say that fair use does indeed apply to the recasting of models for personal use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rimmy wrote:quite honestly, for 16 weapons at $7 a piece, casting material is approx $25 for the trial size (adequate for a few marines or large weapons, the casting resin or material is about the same. you will need casting blocks and clay to do it properly, thats about another $15 at the right place. SO, now you're up to $65 in cost just to attempt to produce the parts.

whats your time worth? to buy them would cost you $122 including shipping. making them yourself assuming you have no errors producing the mold, will cost you $65 and roughtly 3 weeks to complete. (24 cure time per piece with 3 - 6 hours cure time for molds depending on what you buy etc etc)

I am buying a mini casting kit from alumilite. I have used their kits before, for casting custom greatcoat legs for my Imperial Guard.

I plan to cast additional blasters and reaver bike helmets for my Dark Eldar trueborn.

The kit costs me $30. I know how to use it, and it contains everything that I need. The pieces do not take 24 hours to cure, rather they take about a half hour.
I will save myself $90 in completely pointless bits site costs, as well as however much the reaver bike helmets cost (likely around the area of $50, they seem impossible to find on the internet anyway). In the process, I avoid inflating the already ridiculous aftermarket for 40k bits.

Now, when recasting models straight from GW, it's a bit worse, because it's not like there is some crazy lack of supply.

I think I'll take my $100-150 savings on my 3 ounces of tiny plastic rare guns and heads. Technical legality or grey areas be damned.

ph34r wrote:

insaniak wrote:In the US, people like to cite the 'fair use' clause of their copyright laws as justification for recasting... but I've read comments from a number of IP lawyers that point out that Fair Use doesn't actually apply to this sort of situation.

Really? I have only ever heard internet IP lawyers say that fair use does indeed apply to the recasting of models for personal use.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rimmy wrote:quite honestly, for 16 weapons at $7 a piece, casting material is approx $25 for the trial size (adequate for a few marines or large weapons, the casting resin or material is about the same. you will need casting blocks and clay to do it properly, thats about another $15 at the right place. SO, now you're up to $65 in cost just to attempt to produce the parts.

whats your time worth? to buy them would cost you $122 including shipping. making them yourself assuming you have no errors producing the mold, will cost you $65 and roughtly 3 weeks to complete. (24 cure time per piece with 3 - 6 hours cure time for molds depending on what you buy etc etc)

I am buying a mini casting kit from alumilite. I have used their kits before, for casting custom greatcoat legs for my Imperial Guard.

I plan to cast additional blasters and reaver bike helmets for my Dark Eldar trueborn.

The kit costs me $30. I know how to use it, and it contains everything that I need. The pieces do not take 24 hours to cure, rather they take about a half hour.
I will save myself $90 in completely pointless bits site costs, as well as however much the reaver bike helmets cost (likely around the area of $50, they seem impossible to find on the internet anyway). In the process, I avoid inflating the already ridiculous aftermarket for 40k bits.

Now, when recasting models straight from GW, it's a bit worse, because it's not like there is some crazy lack of supply.

I think I'll take my $100-150 savings on my 3 ounces of tiny plastic rare guns and heads. Technical legality or grey areas be damned.

all depends on your casting materials. I have not used the alumlite products (though I intend to) and was only reffering to the poly resins that I have been using to cast my minis in the past.

there is no doubt in my mind you could or even should do it.

its just a matter of whats your situation look like. some people don't have the time, space, or energy to cast parts and duplicate them.

trust me, i'm on your side here.

ph34r wrote:

insaniak wrote:In the US, people like to cite the 'fair use' clause of their copyright laws as justification for recasting... but I've read comments from a number of IP lawyers that point out that Fair Use doesn't actually apply to this sort of situation.

Really? I have only ever heard internet IP lawyers say that fair use does indeed apply to the recasting of models for personal use.

Interestingly enough, I've heard that from a number of poeple on the internet, but so far as I can recall the actual lawyers have always said the exact opposite.

Fair Use applies to things like making backup copies of CDs, or copying a book onto your kindle. Format shifting, or preserving the original. Not making copies of something that you want multiples of so that you don't have to go out and buy more of them.


And in much of the rest of the world, there is no 'Fair Use' clause. Up until a couple of years ago, there was actually no legal way in Australia to put music onto an ipod.

insaniak wrote:

ph34r wrote:

insaniak wrote:In the US, people like to cite the 'fair use' clause of their copyright laws as justification for recasting... but I've read comments from a number of IP lawyers that point out that Fair Use doesn't actually apply to this sort of situation.

Really? I have only ever heard internet IP lawyers say that fair use does indeed apply to the recasting of models for personal use.

Interestingly enough, I've heard that from a number of poeple on the internet, but so far as I can recall the actual lawyers have always said the exact opposite.

The only actual lawyers I can recall just popped in to say how they were indeed lawyers but couldn't really tell us whether or not it was in fact legal.

I'm also going to put my mod hat on for a moment, and ask that people keep away from the specifics of casting GW's (or anyone else's) miniatures. Whether or not you personally believe it's legal, the Dakka management prefers to not encourage specific discussion of recasting to avoid potential legal issues.

Can do, insaniak.

Ph34r- as with every law question it depends where you are however in the UK (where the OP is) it is definately illegal to recast miniatures so you don't have to buy more.

4M2A wrote:Ph34r- as with every law question it depends where you are however in the UK (where the OP is) it is definately illegal to recast miniatures so you don't have to buy more.

a valid point. legality is relative.

but to the OP's question, is morality relative?

its someone elses work. to duplicate it without paying homage to them is still stealing their work.

like I said, I only recast my own items, or things you simply cannot buy anymore. (of date, only Ral Partha models who had the original molds destroyed)

As long as you're not selling it or making a stink about them being your recasts, nobody ever needs to know, and it's up to you to decide.

I am a recaster. I have been doing it for quite a short time, but it has become a rather enjoyable part of my hobby.

For me, casting lets me stay active in the hobby. I have three kids and a wife in nursing school... Neither of us has an income atm, we pay our bills with student loans and the state helps me buy food. I have a stunningly vast collection of figures from years of gaming and as a GW employee. I am able to cast up bits that let me do things that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive, like the squadron of thunderwolf cavalry I am working on using recast juggernauts.

Does this hurt GW's bottom line? No, I wouldn't have bought those juggernauts, or all those meltaguns, or those other bits I have crafted. I would have proxied them, or done without, but the quality of the game I enjoyed would not be as good. Nor would it be as good for the community in which I play. Enthusiastic hobbyists with good looking armies are a driving force in this hobby, and GW knows it. Maybe I can't spend money on minis now, but maybe the guys I game with can. Better game and hobby experiences encourage folks to sink more dollars into this stuff.

I'm willing to admit that this may be viewed as cynical rationalization for cheapskate behavior, and on some levels that is true. But my recasting isn't costing GW a red cent, and may be contributing indirectly to their bottom line.

Does this make recasting okay? No. It makes what I am doing okay. Legally, I'm not sure if what I am doing is protected or not. Morally, I believe I am in the right: we have no obligation to facilitate GW's profiteering, but we do have an obligation to our game and hobby communities. I am able to stay active and competitive, produce inspiring and exciting models, and provide fun experiences for my friends.

If it is actually illegal (something which seems to be disputed somewhat in the first place) surely the fact that GW packs too few pieces in their boxes is an extenuating circumstance. Take my issue as an example. I need 22 meltas for my IG army, and only a single box (the command squad box) contains one example of the weapon. (ignore for a second that the weapons can be bought in metal. That's not the case for so many weapons.)

I sculpt, cast, and recast as I need to. recasting to sell is way in the black. If i recast an OOP piece to complete an eBay model, then I feel no bad feelings. When I modify existing models and the cast/recast the legs, again no bad feelings. Also casting can be done very cheaply now, approximately $20.00. My blog in my sig goes into more detail on mold making materials and casting mediums.

Selling recasts is illegal. Immoral to recast for personal gaming purposes? Well...

Why would it be immoral? Because the company who owns the IP is hypothetically losing money. However, I've seen plenty of gamers use models converted from ranges outside the game in question. In this case, the owner of the IP isn't getting any money either.

I don't see how casting up a bunch of meltaguns or whatever for yourself hurts a company any more than converting a bunch of them for the same purpose. Morally speaking, I have no problem with recasting for personal use. If they included sufficient bitz in the boxed set in the first place, you wouldn't even be considering it.

I am not a lawyer but have a little knowledge of UK copyright law. My understanding is that recasting is always illegal in the UK, however, it would be considered a civil offence, not a criminal offence. This would generally mean that GW would have to actively sue you for damages and prove that you've cost them money. If you're making stuff for yourself and not being too loud about it they're not going to bother doing that - it's not worth it. If you start selling it to others, though, it suddenly becomes in their interest to stop you.

Morality is much more personal. You may think that it's immoral to gain things without giving GW the money for them or you may think that the prices they charge are immoral in the first place. Nobody but you can answer that question.

Rimmy wrote:

its someone elses work. to duplicate it without paying homage to them is still stealing their work.

So if I "pay homage" to Jes Goodwin by praying daily to him at a shrine constructed on the corner of my workbench I could recast his stuff?

AS long as it's for your use it is perfectly LEGAL. It is illegal to give them away or to sell them, obviously.

Morality perfectly fine I wouldn't feel bad. It is a form of art/craft so why not. Does GW present immoral business, sure why not. Finecast is a good example. Personally I do not have problems with people molding casting models. It helps less fortunate people as well if they are interested in the hobby.

I could be way off but but that's just me

AS long as it's for your use it is perfectly LEGAL. It is illegal to give them away or to sell them, obviously.

I guess it needs to be repeated- while it's legal in some places this isn't always the case. In the UK it certainly is not legal.

When asking about casting, you should make it clear what country you are planning to be in when you pour the resin. Laws in different countries control casting/recasting in different ways. What may be fine and good in one may be punishable by fines, etc., in another.

@ Theunicorn

This was really interesting: http://warfrog.blogspot.com/

It's the first time I've seen a good two part mold using IM.

SgtSixkilla wrote:If it is actually illegal (something which seems to be disputed somewhat in the first place) surely the fact that GW packs too few pieces in their boxes is an extenuating circumstance. Take my issue as an example. I need 22 meltas for my IG army, and only a single box (the command squad box) contains one example of the weapon. (ignore for a second that the weapons can be bought in metal. That's not the case for so many weapons.)

GW has the right top package their products however they see fit.

If hotdogs come in packs of 8, and hotdog buns come in packs of 6, does that make it ok for you to steal the extra two buns, because you think they should have been in there in the first place?

What you personally feel entitled to and what the law says is ok are not the same thing.


(And before anyone chimes on on that point, no, I'm not saying recasting is exactly the same as stealing... legally, they're two distinct and different things.)

insaniak wrote:

SgtSixkilla wrote:If it is actually illegal (something which seems to be disputed somewhat in the first place) surely the fact that GW packs too few pieces in their boxes is an extenuating circumstance. Take my issue as an example. I need 22 meltas for my IG army, and only a single box (the command squad box) contains one example of the weapon. (ignore for a second that the weapons can be bought in metal. That's not the case for so many weapons.)

GW has the right top package their products however they see fit.

If hotdogs come in packs of 8, and hotdog buns come in packs of 6, does that make it ok for you to steal the extra two buns, because you think they should have been in there in the first place?

What you personally feel entitled to and what the law says is ok are not the same thing.


(And before anyone chimes on on that point, no, I'm not saying recasting is exactly the same as stealing... legally, they're two distinct and different things.)

No but you could bake the extra buns.

If GW wont put extra bits in the package they should at least expand their line of bits. If anyone is stealing from GW it would be these bits sites that buy their kits and then part them out at huge profits which GW doesn't get. You could compare it t the used game trade which the game developers have been fighting to curb because o the profits they lose because of it.

keisukekun wrote:No but you could bake the extra buns.

Which would be fine, since doing that doesn't involve reproducing something that is covered by copyright.

Similarly, if you need extra parts for your miniatures, you can always sculpt your own weapons. You don't need to recast GW's parts.

If anyone is stealing from GW it would be these bits sites that buy their kits and then part them out at huge profits which GW doesn't get.

That's not stealing from GW, since the kits that are being split up are being bought from GW in the first place.

The second hand market and recasting are two very different issues... not least because one of them is potentially illegal and the other isn't.

Is it legal? Depends on your local law.

Is it moral? Depends on your conscious.

Regarding local law, which users live in countries where they think it is legal to recast for home use, and what is the basis for your belief?

To put it differently, can you point to the copyright laws of your own country which allow recasting?

@AesSedai
I have a lot of old models I have made complete again with Instamold and procreate. It is outstanding. To avoid the armchair IP police and armchair lawyers I dont post it on here. My replacement recasts usually are better than any forgeworld I have either purchased or seen from friends. Procreate is the way to go when using Insta Mold.

In the UK, it is illegal to reproduce someones copyrighted intellectual property, whereas in the US it is not, as long as it isn't sold.

Is there law on that?

I believe that is the copyright roughly, so yes. Reproducing something won't get you arrested though, but it could get you sued if you do it on a large enough scale for the company to take notice.

I'm facing the typical dark eldar player's problem: blasters. Your instamold and procreate may be just what I need.

Short answer: if you have to ask, probably better off not going ahead with it...

The legality of recasting is easily defined by this similar parallel.

Can you buy a fender guitar and modify it in any conceivable manner you can think of and is that mod allowed by the law? Absolutely.

Can you use that modded fender to play music, even Live shows, even make money with the use of that modded instrument? Absolutely, happens all day everyday.

Can you sell your modded fender for cash money representing to a private party that it is modded? Yup eBay baby.

Can you sell that modded fender in a guitar center acting as a retailer representing to a purchaser that it is a licensed brand new fender guitar? Nope

The moral of the story is personal use, gw cant keep you from casting models in the same way that it can't keep you from using a brick as a proxy for a Rhino.

What GW can and will do is protect themselves from you using there IP to make money without their direct and express permission.

I'm neither encouraging or discouraging recasting, personally I believe in WYSIWYG and only playing with painted armies, and fully support people buying their minis, (especially from their local store, support local biz).

On a more practical level however I liken those who would have no problem with recasting whatsoever to those who attempt to encourage the free sharing of information through illegal DL's, they more likely than not have never had their own business's success rely on a copyrighted IP.

I did some basic research into this and it really is a jungle not intended to be penetratet by the casual explorer.

In the European Union there is a thing called design protection which is as far as I understand it used to protect your specific design/pattern.

Design protection is in turn divided into two subcategories. Registered and unregistered, the first is something you apply for before you launch the new design and is valid for 25 years. The second is automatic and is valid for 3 years (there is no way to go back and make an unregistered registered afterwards).

If you violate these rights and loose in a court you will probably pay penalties for any damage you might have caused to the company (by selling products, by damaging the reputation for showing off inferior products, etc.)

The big question here would be did GW apply for design protection back in 87? If they did well then the design protection expires next year and we will be free to produce Marines, Orks, Squats and Eldar (most other races are newer so we'll have to wait for those).

WolfTalon wrote:The legality of recasting is easily defined by this similar parallel.

Can you buy a fender guitar and modify it in any conceivable manner you can think of and is that mod allowed by the law? Absolutely.

Can you use that modded fender to play music, even Live shows, even make money with the use of that modded instrument? Absolutely, happens all day everyday.

Can you sell your modded fender for cash money representing to a private party that it is modded? Yup eBay baby.

Can you sell that modded fender in a guitar center acting as a retailer representing to a purchaser that it is a licensed brand new fender guitar? Nope

The moral of the story is personal use, gw cant keep you from casting models in the same way that it can't keep you from using a brick as a proxy for a Rhino.

What GW can and will do is protect themselves from you using there IP to make money without their direct and express permission.

I'm neither encouraging or discouraging recasting, personally I believe in WYSIWYG and only playing with painted armies, and fully support people buying their minis, (especially from their local store, support local biz).

On a more practical level however I liken those who would have no problem with recasting whatsoever to those who attempt to encourage the free sharing of information through illegal DL's, they more likely than not have never had their own business's success rely on a copyrighted IP.

This 'similar parallel' is completely misguided.

If you bought a fender guitar, you could measure it and create plans - then craft an identical guitar.

You could play the guitar, you could gig with the guitar, you could even sell the guitar - but not with a fender badge.

If you sold the guitar as 'a fender' then you're profiting from fenders intellectual property rights.


You're completely right on the brick as a rhino thing, mind. As long as you have bought the rule book, you're entitled to play the game with whatever gaming pieces you like.

There is nothing to stop you making all your gaming pieces out of greenstuff - whether you sculpt them or cast them yourself. You're only gonna run into problems if you want to use them in a GW/GW event or sell them to people.

If thay are GW models you are recasting I say go for it, the gready bastards dont deserve the money.

the legal issue is a least 90% of the time irrelevant (as long as your not selling them), scince nobodys coming to your house on a "model inspection". i think it is completely defendable to recast if: you are recasting something which isnt for sale anymore, a personal variant (like custom shoulder pads whit your own chapter badge) or single bits like meltaguns or blasters or whatever. as long as your not actually making more models nobody should ever argue whit you. you might argue that GW are greedy bastards that dont deserve your money ( you took the words right out of my mouth Kwapple) but thats upp to you.

AG. wrote:

WolfTalon wrote:The legality of recasting is easily defined by this similar parallel.

Can you buy a fender guitar and modify it in any conceivable manner you can think of and is that mod allowed by the law? Absolutely.

Can you use that modded fender to play music, even Live shows, even make money with the use of that modded instrument? Absolutely, happens all day everyday.

Can you sell your modded fender for cash money representing to a private party that it is modded? Yup eBay baby.

Can you sell that modded fender in a guitar center acting as a retailer representing to a purchaser that it is a licensed brand new fender guitar? Nope

The moral of the story is personal use, gw cant keep you from casting models in the same way that it can't keep you from using a brick as a proxy for a Rhino.

What GW can and will do is protect themselves from you using there IP to make money without their direct and express permission.

I'm neither encouraging or discouraging recasting, personally I believe in WYSIWYG and only playing with painted armies, and fully support people buying their minis, (especially from their local store, support local biz).

On a more practical level however I liken those who would have no problem with recasting whatsoever to those who attempt to encourage the free sharing of information through illegal DL's, they more likely than not have never had their own business's success rely on a copyrighted IP.

This 'similar parallel' is completely misguided.

If you bought a fender guitar, you could measure it and create plans - then craft an identical guitar.

You could play the guitar, you could gig with the guitar, you could even sell the guitar - but not with a fender badge.

If you sold the guitar as 'a fender' then you're profiting from fenders intellectual property rights.


You're completely right on the brick as a rhino thing, mind. As long as you have bought the rule book, you're entitled to play the game with whatever gaming pieces you like.

There is nothing to stop you making all your gaming pieces out of greenstuff - whether you sculpt them or cast them yourself. You're only gonna run into problems if you want to use them in a GW/GW event or sell them to people.

Fenders are bought and modded then used alllllllll the time and they still retain the fender "badge". On the professional level most musicians mod their guitars to the point where they are more mod and less brand name, they are still considered that "particular brand. ". The guitar company doesn't care as long as John Mayer gets up there and says, "yeah I play a fender strat."

Who cares, GW is the worst.

honetly this is more a moral issue with some technical bits.

for instance, its morally ok for personal use, the general populace has agreed on that thus far. Legally? from a personal perspective, yeah there may be laws and regulations. but who is going to enforce them? unless your putting a major dent in a companies profits i can bet the most you would get is a fine and a slap on the hands, if that.

Do i think recasting is OK? to a certain extent yes. i would recast weapons or make mods to cast, i would not recast a factory model and duplicate them. even though with PP Products that would be easy. only time i would learn to cast is to make bits i may need. and it would be for personal use. i believe in promoting the hobby and FLGS.

This brings up the question that is it still illegal to sell a recasted model even if its out of print?
My nopinion is that if you have the supplies, then go for it. Its not THAT bad, seeing as youll still need to buy some things from GW, so as long as youre not selling the recasted models i think its fine.

Legal? Seems that opinions vary. If you ever find yourself in a situation that involves subpoenas and lawyers you'll have your answer.

Moral? Know thyself.

And just because I feel like saying it, I feel that eBay is more of a financial blow to the GW bottom line that recasting ever possibly could be. I got back into the hobby in Oct 2009 and since that time I've spent around $1,000 on various items of GW terrain, vehicles, troops, etc. Not one cent of that made it back to GW. Even my FLGS isn't really cashing in on me because my purchases are limited to peripherals (paints, GS, etc). The economy is in the tank and eBay is a buyers market right now.

Not trying to derail the thread, just sayin'. Recast? Whatever. eBay? Killing GW.

*Edited for date I got back into this. It's been one big long blur ever since.*

Skalk Bloodaxe wrote:Legal? Seems that opinions vary. If you ever find yourself in a situation that involves subpoenas and lawyers you'll have your answer.

Moral? Know thyself.

And just because I feel like saying it, I feel that eBay is more of a financial blow to the GW bottom line that recasting ever possibly could be. I got back into the hobby in Oct 2009 and since that time I've spent around $1,000 on various items of GW terrain, vehicles, troops, etc. Not one cent of that made it back to GW. Even my FLGS isn't really cashing in on me because my purchases are limited to peripherals (paints, GS, etc). The economy is in the tank and eBay is a buyers market right now.

Not trying to derail the thread, just sayin'. Recast? Whatever. eBay? Killing GW.

*Edited for date I got back into this. It's been one big long blur ever since.*

But everythings from Ebay comes from GW anyways, so although it hasnt gone directly to GW it gets there.

Another aspect of the moral issues is now that GW is doing Finecast it is even less identifiable that someone is doing resin castings...

Morally speaking, having something go unnoticed should decrease the chance of being caught so to speak... which would then decease the moral issues, which would then encourage resin casting.

Another vaguery in US copyright law is that "personal use" has limits, one of them being quantity. For example, doing a few plasma pistols may be fine but re-casting 500 plague monk staves for your Skaven plague-themed army is not.

In the US, I don't think you can successfully make a fair use argument unless you are a teacher, and are recasting to teach a class to play 40k. I'm not a lawyer, but the relevant statute is not particularly long, riddled with loopholes, or otherwise ambiguous.

If you think it does, I'd like you to explain what basis you think there is for recasting works of sculpture.

--

You also asked about the moral element. Well, that's a little different. I myself do recast small bits for use with my bases and scenery. I've never recasted an entire model, just things to break up for scenery. I don't think I have some god-given legal right to do so, I just don't care. Your morality may be less flexible. If I felt the need to rationalize it (I don't) I suppose I could say that no one is getting hurt, because forgeworld isn't losing a sale anyway: If I could not recast, I would not buy Rhino doors to cut up and use on bases, and the models never leave my house (unless I take them somewhere to play a game, which really never happens anymore). I suppose I could also say that, in my opinion, GWS has lost a great deal of moral authority making an argument it's wrong to rip off their IP (a right that they didn't feel extended to Michael Moorcock, or James Cameron, or Robert Heinlein, or any of the other many people they have ripped off in years past) and that what goes around comes around. My recasting a bolter that I glued to a base to use to a counter isn't making me millions of dollars, as opposed to say, the symbol of chaos undivided, or the image of a current t-800 necron warrior, etc etc etc....

But at the end of the day, those rationalizations are irrelevant. I just don't care. If that makes me a terrible person, I guess I'm a terrible person.

I believe if I use the models just for Scenary and when I say this like 1-5 men in total its ok but thats it

Legal? Yes if you DO NOT resell the casts. If you sell them as GW product your commiting a crime. insaniak though your example is wrong, your not taking two extra buns from another package in this, in fact the closest comparison would be buying the bread mix, a bread maker, and making two more hot dog buns at home on your own time.

That said if you attend a GW event with recast minis and are found out, they do have the right to not allow you to use those figures, and can even ask you to leave, so if you do recast then recast metal as metal and plastic as plastic.

Now onto the moral issue, as someone who has worked for a toy and hobby store and Hobbytown USA I can tell you morally I find it perfectly A-okay to recast. Especially when I worked at the independent store we had the stuff to make casts BESIDE the model kits. The other issue I have personally with GW is thier enormous mark up, when compared to other mainstream kits. Compareing scale to scale you can buy high end quality tanks, soldiers, and aircraft ESPECIALLY the aircraft for 10 to 20 dollars less then a GW kit. I mean a Stormraven is what close 70 bucks? A same 'close to scale' F-4 Phantom will run you 25-35 bucks max. And be just as if not more detailed.

winnertakesall wrote:I believe that is the copyright roughly, so yes. Reproducing something won't get you arrested though, but it could get you sued if you do it on a large enough scale for the company to take notice.

Anyone can commit as many crimes as they like without being prosecuted until they get caught. It doesn't make the crimes legal.

What I mean is, can you point me to the US Copyright Office's web pages which say it's legal to recast stuff as long as you don't sell it? Everything is online.

I would be tempted to recast if only get hold of Meltaguns and Servo arms. The former can only befound in singles or perhaps doubels in the official kits and are stupidly expensive to get from bits sites.

The latter are impossibel to get hold of as separate bits. I have never seen one on a bitz site...ever.

I would have no qualms abotu re-casting these bits for example (assumign i had the equipement or ability). I think i would draw the line at casting entire minis though.

Praxiss wrote

I think i would draw the line at casting entire minis though.

Why stop there? It's all the same to GW. If you decided to circumvent buying products from GW by casting them yourself it seems arbitrary to decide that one bit is better or more ethical to cast than another. Unless it is to lower the chances of getting noticed, I don't get it. I saw a great truescale army here on dakka once upon a short time ago that recasted tons of terminator legs. It thought it was awesome. It seems to have vanished in the night. A metlagun or 30 terminator legs, there is no difference.

What if GW do not stock the part that i am after?

I will accept that you can buy a it of melta guns, fair enough.

To calrify - i am tryign to get hold of servo arms for conversion on my iron Warriors Asp. Champions (for purposes of fluffiness). I cureently have 2 metal ones that are leftover from a different project whcih involved usign the body and other bits form the metal DO Techmarine. Currently, the only way for me to get more servo arms is to buy more techmarines, which seems stupid. if i have bought the basics, and only want copies of the specific part, which GW (or any other company as far as i have been able to find) will not produce/sell separately, what is the alternative?

Ok, new scenario.
What if I made molds of every part of a tyranid warrior, and then cast those parts in chocolate.
Could I sell those chocolate models claiming them as foodstuffs, and technically a noncompete with GW's model industry?

Kilkrazy wrote:

winnertakesall wrote:I believe that is the copyright roughly, so yes. Reproducing something won't get you arrested though, but it could get you sued if you do it on a large enough scale for the company to take notice.

Anyone can commit as many crimes as they like without being prosecuted until they get caught. It doesn't make the crimes legal.

What I mean is, can you point me to the US Copyright Office's web pages which say it's legal to recast stuff as long as you don't sell it? Everything is online.

You won't find anything in copyright law allowing rappers to "remix" samples of music from other songs, either. That stuff is in common law rulings from the courts. It is extremely convoluted and often rulings contradict one another. In the end, it's all going to come down on what the current thinking is regarding the limits of "fair use".

Texas Instrument wrote:Ok, new scenario.
What if I made molds of every part of a tyranid warrior, and then cast those parts in chocolate.
Could I sell those chocolate models claiming them as foodstuffs, and technically a noncompete with GW's model industry?

I don't really know about legality, but I am going to do this. just because it would be horrifying and delicious.

mmmm tastey tastey copyright infringement.....

I also love the idea of eating the nids that the enemy kills.

Texas Instrument wrote:I also love the idea of eating the nids that the enemy kills.

my buddy and I are bringing in food hammer.

we are just going to Proxy models with food. to the victor go the spoils!

I still start a new thread for this though (unless I find one already made)

Texas Instrument wrote:Ok, new scenario.
What if I made molds of every part of a tyranid warrior, and then cast those parts in chocolate.
Could I sell those chocolate models claiming them as foodstuffs, and technically a noncompete with GW's model industry?

errrrrrrrrrrrrrrm... That's a delicious good question, actually.

Ouze wrote:
errrrrrrrrrrrrrrm... That's a delicious good question, actually.

Indeed. I would posit that the various moderators, chiefly Killkrazy, have it spot on the nose when they say, "It's complicated."
I brought up that situation as a fairly absurd complication to the issue, so allow me to bring it back on topic.

Assume I was running a company where what I did was take in items and recast them. Rings, wood molding, models. Whatever.
Would it be legal to make a mold and cast a customer's model that they sculpted themselves? Absolutely.
Would It be legal to make copies of Games Workshop models that they sent in? No, because that cuts into GW profit and copyright.
Would it be legal to cast a GW model and display it on my company website to showcase the level of detail I can recast, using the model as an example? Yes, because I'm not recasting it for the customer/ my own profit. Now, I cannot say that it is a GW model, as they own copyright on both the GW name and the individual model.

If I cast a Tyranid Warrior in chocolate, and sold it as a chocolate Tyranid Warrior (white chocolate carapace, milk chocolate feathering)? Lawsuit. I said Tyranid, and therefore used GW's product and marketing already in place to sell my product.
If I called it a Yum Yum Alien, and never mention to you that its based on a GW product, well then its tasty treat time for everyone.

Texas Instrument wrote:Ok, new scenario.
What if I made molds of every part of a tyranid warrior, and then cast those parts in chocolate.
Could I sell those chocolate models claiming them as foodstuffs, and technically a noncompete with GW's model industry?

Okay as I've established before recasting...legal. selling...illegal, and GW has the right to bar your recasts from their premises regardless. These are facts ladies and gentlemen

Now foodstuffs of intellectual properties are a horse of a different color and this is how that works. YOU HAVE to contact GW via a letter or e-mail and REQUEST to sell the product. If they say yes, they are intitled to an agreed upon percentage and they will negotiate with you over. If they say no, however, you can not sell them. However, you can make them and GIVE AWAY to anyone you see fit, so having a chocolate battle between cast nid's and space marines, where the casualties are eatten...GW can't say or do anything to you. The other caveat is if you make the effort to contact them, IIRC and you do not get a responce in 60 days you may sell them. But if they found out, they can't charge you for copyright, but they can make you cease and desist. At which point you have to stop making them. And you can go the Alien Yum Yum route as mentioned before, though it's treated like the chinese toys you get at a flea market.

Im definitley gonna do research into making moulds to make a small chocolate army. Its be so cool.

I would say the same as what most already have. If your doing it to reproduce models as a whole, then I would frown on that as an outside player. If you were doing it to make more insignia or some other accessory, then I wouldnt see a problem with it.

I cast bitz such as legs, swords and other "only 1 in the kit" bits

If someone makes chocolate Tyranids, this will easily be the best recasting thread in the history of Dakka.

I am totally making Chocolate nids. Even found a mold making kit for food

http://www.amazon.com/Easy-Mold-Silicone-Molding-Casting/dp/B003CHMZXI

Ill post my results when i manage to get em done

KingmanHighborn wrote: insaniak though your example is wrong, your not taking two extra buns from another package in this, in fact the closest comparison would be buying the bread mix, a bread maker, and making two more hot dog buns at home on your own time.

It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison. It was drawing attention to the lack of logic behind the idea that recasting is ok if the company making the product doesn't give you as many bits as you personally think should be in the package.

keisukekun wrote:I am totally making Chocolate nids. Even found a mold making kit for food

http://www.amazon.com/Easy-Mold-Silicone-Molding-Casting/dp/B003CHMZXI

Ill post my results when i manage to get em done

I'm definitely looking forward to seeing these! For all those who've suggested it, I see the beginning of a whole new way of gaming - make all your troops out of chocolate and when your oppo kills them they get to eat them - this could make for some highly competetive games! Although you may defenitely need to team up with someone if you're playing apocalypse!

So, far, I see a lot of people making definitive statements without qualifying their expertise.

Just because you THINK something is legal or illegal, that doesn't make it fact.

How about qualifying your experience? Joe Schmo saying "Yes. It's definitely legal," means jack-all.

Someone like Polonious who, while not an IP lawyer *is* an actual lawyer and does his homework before chiming in is someone worth listening to.
Additionally, someone who IS a trained IP lawyer is worth listening to, as well.

My point? If you're not trained to deal with matters of legality, stop issuing opinions and stating them as facts. You're only risking getting someone in trouble. Stick to addressing his questions on morality.

Eric

KingmanHighborn wrote:

Texas Instrument wrote:Ok, new scenario.
What if I made molds of every part of a tyranid warrior, and then cast those parts in chocolate.
Could I sell those chocolate models claiming them as foodstuffs, and technically a noncompete with GW's model industry?

Okay as I've established before recasting...legal. selling...illegal, and GW has the right to bar your recasts from their premises regardless. These are facts ladies and gentlemen

GW will not only ban your recasts from the store, they can and will ban you. we also didn't let non GW models as proxies in the store unless it was part of a GW product.

while I didn't exactly agree with that, I understood it and enforced it, heavily.

this whole "GW is an evil empire" thing is out of hand. they are a manufacturer, and they are artisans who have managed to turn a profit in a VERY VERY niche market. and we should be happy about it. its why the game has survived for as long as it has.

Stealing two more buns is morally and legally wrong.

But this is more like baking two more buns. If you buy the flour from the same store and it happens to be even the same flour manufacturer that makes the buns then it becomes even less morally ambiguous...

...as long as you eat the buns yourself and don't try to sell your nasty homemade buns at your kid's lemonade stand.

No making the buns would be buying the sculpting material, casting equipment and paying a sculpter and designer to come up with a sketch for the peice and make the bit's from scratch.

All this food talk...

...So hungry.

*chocolate models*

Breotan wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

winnertakesall wrote:I believe that is the copyright roughly, so yes. Reproducing something won't get you arrested though, but it could get you sued if you do it on a large enough scale for the company to take notice.

Anyone can commit as many crimes as they like without being prosecuted until they get caught. It doesn't make the crimes legal.

What I mean is, can you point me to the US Copyright Office's web pages which say it's legal to recast stuff as long as you don't sell it? Everything is online.

You won't find anything in copyright law allowing rappers to "remix" samples of music from other songs, either. That stuff is in common law rulings from the courts. It is extremely convoluted and often rulings contradict one another. In the end, it's all going to come down on what the current thinking is regarding the limits of "fair use".

So, "No" is the word you are looking for.

If you catch up with music sampling law you'll find it is extremely restrictive nowadays.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you catch up with music sampling law you'll find it is extremely restrictive nowadays.

But we can still edit quotes from Tim Powers, right? (love that quote, btw)
^ This was going to be a stand alone statement at first, poking fun at people sampling things from music and books all the time.
But then I started thinking, what if you sculpted a reasonable facsimile of a GW model, taking heavily from the design, but changing it just a little bit?
For example, tac marine arms. If I sculpted an exact copy of the arm, using calipers to measure exact distances, but left out the elbow pad. Legal?

MagickalMemories wrote:So, far, I see a lot of people making definitive statements without qualifying their expertise.

Just because you THINK something is legal or illegal, that doesn't make it fact.

How about qualifying your experience? Joe Schmo saying "Yes. It's definitely legal," means jack-all.

Someone like Polonious who, while not an IP lawyer *is* an actual lawyer and does his homework before chiming in is someone worth listening to.
Additionally, someone who IS a trained IP lawyer is worth listening to, as well.

My point? If you're not trained to deal with matters of legality, stop issuing opinions and stating them as facts. You're only risking getting someone in trouble. Stick to addressing his questions on morality.

Eric

What about having a friend you can readily bug who is studying to be a lawyer and thus has the books on hand? Though he did give me one evil look when I brought up the food issue.

In all honesty, I don't care who your source is, provided it's being accurately quoted.

People saying it's, "legal if you're only doing it for personal purposes," with no legal training are misleading those who are looking for facts. That statement should be preceded by "I think is is" or "I think it should be."

In your case, if you're bugging a budy who's studying law and you prefaced your statement as such... or even if you were just stating your opinion and qualifying it as being one... would be totally cool.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:My point? If you're not trained to deal with matters of legality, stop issuing opinions and stating them as facts. You're only risking getting someone in trouble. Stick to addressing his questions on morality.

I don't mean to interrupt your appeal to authority, there, but I think I think a well reasoned opinion is worthwhile even if don't have the requisite piece of paper saying you are duly qualified to proffer it.

The fact you got certified means f-all, frequently. For each and every single case being argued around the world, fully 50% of the lawyers involved will have presented legally "wrong" opinions at the resolution of the case. I quite remember every single Chapterhouse jihad thread where every single person that argued that their work would likely lead to a lawsuit being told how naive they were and that they should leave legal opinions to professionals.

Most professionals that generate advice as their main purpose, are, generally speaking, prostitutes, for lack of a better word. The cigarette industry has failed to prove a link between smoking and cancer for nigh on 40 years now with no success despite hiring expert scientists, with impeccable credentials. Similarly, the best climate research scientists in the world can't agree at all on if man is changing the climate, or if it's even actually changing. Every day I help support software engineers, who have masters in computer science or programming, having computer problems because of some stupid thing they did, like a syntax error or a missing argument.

tldr; just because you have a degree doesn't mean you're right. You could still be a shill or incompetent or just freaking wrong.

Sorry if I was not clear.
I don't really have a problem with people sharing their opinions. I have a problem with people stating their opinions as if they're fact.

Eric

Take a moment to look at why recasting happen, if GW (for instance) models were not hyper over costed then there would not be a real market for garage recasters, much less recast-resellers.

For instance to set up a simple 1 or 2 model gravity pour white metal mold you will need the following.
A hotpot, ladle, mold, mold vulcanizer tool, mold clamps, heat resistant gloves, white metal, and of course the original 1 or two models to be recast
conservatively this is around $200.00 + shipping and or taxes, not counting the models to be cast.
In addition if you mess up the mold a new blank is $20.00. Spin casting is unbelievably more expensive as the spin machine and mold blanks are very costly.

So around $250.00 to have a workable mold to cast 1 or 2 28mm models in metal does not make sense unless the models have a hyperinflated cost. If GW were to push their product line to plastics and keep the pricing in reason recasting would no longer be an option for most home hobbyists.

Using Instamold and Procreate on bitz is much cheaper at $13.00 for the mold and $10 for the putty, plus its reusable. BUt it is really only suitable for small bitz like guns and legs.

Resin casting done right is even more expensive than white metal.

GW is a victim of their own bad pricing choices. Eldar wraithguard come to mind in this situation, along with Terminator models. being prime targets for recasters. WHen you need 10-30 wraithguard at $15.00 each you get to a point where recasting for personal use is more economical than $450.00 plus tax or shipping.

I agree they could do a lot to reduce recasting- offer bits services, reduce costs, add the right number of equipment to make each unit- but this their buisness and they have the choice to do so. However don't take this is me arguing against recasting. I personaly have no issue with it and am certainly not going to buy a whole vehicle kit to get enough pegs to be able to switch between the weapon choices.

MagickalMemories wrote:Sorry if I was not clear.
I don't really have a problem with people sharing their opinions. I have a problem with people stating their opinions as if they're fact.

Reasonable enough, surely.

Recasting saves money. As a hobbyist a good amount of your income goes to Gw (for the stuff you don't recast). Ie, there is a good chance that the money you saved will go back to Gw anyway. Plus, without recasting, to keep converting somewhat affordable, many people turn to different distributors or bits sellers who can afford to sell the models for less and make a bigger profit than Gw (they are terrible at business). So really as long as you are buying the originals from Gw they are most likely losing no money. And besides the merchandise they make themselves, they are entitled to jack as long you aren't making a profit off of their IP.

Rimmy wrote:GW will not only ban your recasts from the store, they can and will ban you. we also didn't let non GW models as proxies in the store unless it was part of a GW product.

I've always been more on the side of "Rule of cool" rather than "product must be 100% games workshop".
Its never been a problem at my local (well, closest GW store), and even less so at the FLGS.

It usually goes "Wow, nice models."
"Thanks, build this part, this part, and these parts from my own sculpting and molds!"
"Dude, awesome. Lets roll some dice."

what if you recast GW models but used them in something completley different liek D&D games or somthing

DISCLAIMER: I have not read the 4 pages of discussion on this, only the OP.

Legal? Only if YOU hold the copyright or a license to reproduce said copyrighted work. So if it's a model YOU sculpted, go nuts. Recasting Space Marine models is very illegal. That being said, if it's for personal use, the odds of you getting caught and subsequently prosecuted are slim to none.

Moral? Gray area. Morals are relative to each person, they are not universal.

Personally I don't have anything wrong with recasting OOP or rare items. A SM combi melta comes to mind. How many kits have them? 2? And on Ebay they are as much as $5 each at times. So when you run 7-10 sternguard you are looking at a $50 weapons option. In this case I would personally break the law. Keep in mind I'm not suggesting you do that, nor am I admitting to having done it. Just a hypothetical. Another instance could be something like OOP 6th edition Empire infantry. Worlds better than the current GW models, and increasingly hard to find NiB.

Another thing you have to consider with this is cost of production vs. cost of legally attaining said models. I can tell you right now that buying, setting up, and recasting a whopping 10 combi meltas is not worth the time or money unless you have rubber and resin laying around and have already taken the time to learn how to mold and cast.

That all being said, what GW doesn't know won't sue you. It is still the official stance of Dakka that recasting is illegal and topics detailing the process or discussion of actual recasts are prohibited.

Now, if anyone has comments on what I've said or would like to continue a discussion on such a topic, feel free to PM me and we can email or something. I respect the rules of this site.

EDIT: It's a common misconception that personal use recasting is legal. It is not. GW can still sue you for moneys lost by you not buying their product, they don't have to sue you for selling them and making profit. They then can also sue for the copyright infringement itself as you don't have permission to reproduce their intellectual property.

I'm really peeved that people keep spreading the word that personal use copyright infringement isn't illegal. Downloading music is illegal even if you don't sell it to anyone. Same frikking thing. PERSONAL USE RECASTS ARE VERY MUCH ILLEGAL.

Texas Instrument wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If you catch up with music sampling law you'll find it is extremely restrictive nowadays.

But we can still edit quotes from Tim Powers, right? (love that quote, btw)
^ This was going to be a stand alone statement at first, poking fun at people sampling things from music and books all the time.
But then I started thinking, what if you sculpted a reasonable facsimile of a GW model, taking heavily from the design, but changing it just a little bit?
For example, tac marine arms. If I sculpted an exact copy of the arm, using calipers to measure exact distances, but left out the elbow pad. Legal?

That's not recasting. I think it clouds the core issue to introduce a separate topic.

I'd also like to point out that I get my IP law info from IP lawyer Joe Escalante, who actually hosts a radio show about this exact topic: Copyright law and infringement as well as music industry law and how to protect ones own intellectual property.

Ask him if personal use infringements are illegal. I guarantee he'll agree with me.

Ouze wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:Sorry if I was not clear.
I don't really have a problem with people sharing their opinions. I have a problem with people stating their opinions as if they're fact.

Reasonable enough, surely.

I try to be. ; )

cordan123 wrote:So really as long as you are buying the originals from Gw they are most likely losing no money. And besides the merchandise they make themselves, they are entitled to jack as long you aren't making a profit off of their IP.

This is untrue.
In practice, they are not losing money. It's not like you took a physical model from them without paying for it. What you did, however, was deprive them of the funds they would have received for the model had you acquired it legally. In that respect, they are losing money. Lost sales = lost money.
Also, you can't say they aren't entitled to jack (and be correct). The law is against you on this. They are, in fact, legally entitled to the income from that (insert model here) that you copied. Since they're the only legal producer of the item, they're legally entitled to the income for all copies of said item.

The idea that you aren't making a profit off of their IP is debatable, as well. Presumably, recasting any models or bits is in lieu of purchasing an equivalent amount. Had you bought those models/bits, they'd have cost you money. OOP or not doesn't matter. To buy it, you'd have had to spend money. Now, by recasting this model, you've refrained from spending the money. That equates to more money in your pocket which, really, is no different than profit, since you can now do with that money whatever you'd have done with it if it was profit. If you'd bought the models, you wouldn't have that money to attain more stuff with. Profit.

To clarify... I don't care, morally or ethically, about recasting. What you do in that regard is up to you and I won't judge you for it. I've never recasted and, apart from (possibly) decorative bits, I doubt I ever will.
What I do care about, however, are misguided thoughts and beliefs about recasting.

You aren't entitled to free copies of something just because you bought one single copy of it. Even if it's OOP or "just a bit." The law isn't on your side. Don't try to claim that it is and don't try to justify it. Just say, "I'm recasting. I know it's illegal and I'm doing it anyway," and you're set. Any claims to the contrary are simply self-delusional.

Eric

I say cast the Chocolate 'Nids. Post a picture. If the Inquisition comes after you, simply eat the 'Nids and claim an Alfred E. Newman.

I can see it now.

Forget Finecast. GW's next new material is Chococast (internet meme nickname: Tastycast).

Think about the profit they'll make on people who have to return to buy a new Sternguard squad after every "You kill it you eat it" Apocalypse battle!
They could even use colored chocolate to meet the standard 3-color tournament requirement.

Do NOT leave them in your car for a "melt test." They WILL fail. lol

Eric

It's refreshing to see other people who understand the finer points of model IP laws. I get rather pissed off when people spout incorrect information to the tune of "personal recasts are legal".

Is it illegal? yes in every way

Will you get caught? only if you are flaunting them in front of GW or fanboys. Paint them up and none will be the wiser.


To me, ultimately I understand that recasting causes GW lost sales. I'm fine with this as they seem to gouge me at every turn anyway. If prices hadn't risen like they have in the last 10 years then I would be opposed to recasting. But GW have alienated those who collect and paint as the primary hobby by making it so damn pricey, especially when I could just as easily paint other models.

MagickalMemories wrote:
Also, you can't say they aren't entitled to jack (and be correct). The law is against you on this. They are, in fact, legally entitled to the income from that (insert model here) that you copied. Since they're the only legal producer of the item, they're legally entitled to the income for all copies of said item.

I'm calling shenanigans. The reason most people have listed that they recast is "because GW doesn't sell the item".

Say I recast 22 ig meltas, to cite a popular example. GW, for whatever reason, gets wind of it and their legal team takes me down for the cost they are out since I didn't buy it. Plus punitve blah blah blah...
So what am I paying for? 22 ig command boxes? I only recast the one arm, not the box that arm comes in. No civil court in the world would make that ruling.
So they charge me for what? 22 melts arm bits? Total comes to... Oh, they don't sell it. So they are out zero dollars.
Or would I get charged their cost to make 22 arms? Three bucks of plastic? And to get it they spent how much on lawyers?

the sales lost is not all they will sue you for. They will sue for punitive damages, as well as likely legal fees.

Keep in mind that the only reason they WOULD sue someone for recasting would be to make an example of them, as a certain lawsuit comes to mind. It's not that they want their money back, it's that they want to instill fear into potential infringers.

You forget that it's not really about WHAT you copy, it's about the ACT of copying without permission.

A record company could sue you for illegally downloading a single song. That doesn't mean they want their $.99 for the song, they want damages and that same fear put into potential downloaders.

Texas Instrument wrote: I'm calling shenanigans. The reason most people have listed that they recast is "because GW doesn't sell the item".

Say I recast 22 ig meltas, to cite a popular example. GW, for whatever reason, gets wind of it and their legal team takes me down for the cost they are out since I didn't buy it. Plus punitve blah blah blah...
So what am I paying for? 22 ig command boxes? I only recast the one arm, not the box that arm comes in. No civil court in the world would make that ruling.
So they charge me for what? 22 melts arm bits? Total comes to... Oh, they don't sell it. So they are out zero dollars.
Or would I get charged their cost to make 22 arms? Three bucks of plastic? And to get it they spent how much on lawyers?

Using this logic, which I believe to be correct, recasting is really no different than constructing aftermarket products.

If I own a "bitz" company for car parts, and I want to create an aftermarket Honda Civic exhaust, I need the dimensions of the factory component. I'm making a proprietary part for a single vehicle. Honda is losing out on the money that you didn't spend on THEIR buffed up exhaust, but aftermarket products are everywhere.

The only way that you're literally replicating the GW part is by casting the same part in the same medium. If your resin is different, it's not really the same thing that you've created is it? It looks the same, and performs the same function, but your resin might be 58% less likely to melt in a hot car.

We aren't talking about aftermarket products such as Chapterhouse. That is a whole different discussion. We are talking about 1:1 reproductions slogged as the original.

If Honda found out that you were producing 1:1 reproductions of a part they sell, lets say something unique like a door, they could very well sue you. If they have copyright on the door, and you make an exact replica of it thru whatever means, they can sue for infringement, loss of moneys and punitive damages.

EDIT: are people so desperate to feel guiltless that they have to rationalize in their heads on why they THINK it isn't or shouldn't be illegal?

Just admit it's illegal, just like speeding on the interstate, and continue doing it like you always have. No amount of self rationalizing will make recasting legal.

aerethan wrote:We aren't talking about aftermarket products such as Chapterhouse. That is a whole different discussion. We are talking about 1:1 reproductions slogged as the original.

If Honda found out that you were producing 1:1 reproductions of a part they sell, lets say something unique like a door, they could very well sue you. If they have copyright on the door, and you make an exact replica of it thru whatever means, they can sue for infringement, loss of moneys and punitive damages.

What exactly is "slogging"?

advertised or otherwise pushed as. In this case we'd be talking about someone on ebay OR at a game store pretending that their reproduction is an original.

I cannot stress enough that personal use is not a legal defense for copyright infringement.

aerethan wrote:advertised or otherwise pushed as. In this case we'd be talking about someone on ebay OR at a game store pretending that their reproduction is an original.

I cannot stress enough that personal use is not a legal defense for copyright infringement.

You would have to see what fits under fair use, though I don't think anyone is saying that selling recasts is legal.

If we're talking copyright infringement, then sculpting a "Space Marine" at all is infringing on GW's copyright.

the term Space Marine is trademarked for miniature models, so it would fall under trade mark law, not copyright.

Recasting does not fall under fair use at all. You aren't making back ups in case one breaks. You are making more of them so you don't have to buy them. Plain and simple that is viewed in IP law as stealing.

Again, people need to just accept that it's illegal, and if that really bothers them that much, don't do it.

Recasting doesn't bother me, but I don't have my head in the sand about the law regarding it. I accept the risk and consequences attached to it.

Is it MORAL to sell a pack of 3 killa kanz, and only sell 1 of each of the 4 arms with the kit, with no option to get more gun arms?!

It's a god damn crime that's what that is.... sons of bitches...

Hence why morals are relative.

Let me pose a different question to you all.

You see an auction on eBay that is a recast.
Lets say a seller that you have watched for a month or two and (s)he only lists items every tues/wed with a private seller&buyer restrictions and the auctions were 24hour listings. every week you see the same lot of 30 chaos terminators get sold, and you see the buyers leave positive feedback.

Would you buy the product? even though you know its a garage recast.

theunicorn wrote:Let me pose a different question to you all.

You see an auction on eBay that is a recast.
Lets say a seller that you have watched for a month or two and (s)he only lists items every tues/wed with a private seller&buyer restrictions and the auctions were 24hour listings. every week you see the same lot of 30 chaos terminators get sold, and you see the buyers leave positive feedback.

Would you buy the product? even though you know its a garage recast.

I likely would if it were the right product at the right price and the right quality. More likely that I'd end up casting the part myself though as I have the facilities to.

insaniak wrote:

SgtSixkilla wrote:If it is actually illegal (something which seems to be disputed somewhat in the first place) surely the fact that GW packs too few pieces in their boxes is an extenuating circumstance. Take my issue as an example. I need 22 meltas for my IG army, and only a single box (the command squad box) contains one example of the weapon. (ignore for a second that the weapons can be bought in metal. That's not the case for so many weapons.)

GW has the right top package their products however they see fit.

If hotdogs come in packs of 8, and hotdog buns come in packs of 6, does that make it ok for you to steal the extra two buns, because you think they should have been in there in the first place?

What you personally feel entitled to and what the law says is ok are not the same thing.


(And before anyone chimes on on that point, no, I'm not saying recasting is exactly the same as stealing... legally, they're two distinct and different things.)

Just had to say it, but no, stealing the buns wouldn't be legal. Baking your own buns, however, for you to enjoy, using the ingredients list on the back of the bun bag, with a little trial and error, would be fine.

Anvildude wrote:

insaniak wrote:

SgtSixkilla wrote:If it is actually illegal (something which seems to be disputed somewhat in the first place) surely the fact that GW packs too few pieces in their boxes is an extenuating circumstance. Take my issue as an example. I need 22 meltas for my IG army, and only a single box (the command squad box) contains one example of the weapon. (ignore for a second that the weapons can be bought in metal. That's not the case for so many weapons.)

GW has the right top package their products however they see fit.

If hotdogs come in packs of 8, and hotdog buns come in packs of 6, does that make it ok for you to steal the extra two buns, because you think they should have been in there in the first place?

What you personally feel entitled to and what the law says is ok are not the same thing.


(And before anyone chimes on on that point, no, I'm not saying recasting is exactly the same as stealing... legally, they're two distinct and different things.)

Just had to say it, but no, stealing the buns wouldn't be legal. Baking your own buns, however, for you to enjoy, using the ingredients list on the back of the bun bag, with a little trial and error, would be fine.

Not if you are slogging those buns as being Wonder Bread buns. At that point it is infringement. And comparing buns and toy models is not accurate. A hot dog bun itself cannot be copyrighted. Companies use secret recipes to get around this, pushing their product as being superior as a result of said recipe. A model however very much can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alas, an analogy hit me. You are right. You are more than welcome to bake your own hot dog buns. The model equivalent of which would be sculpting your OWN designs to meet your needs. You can't use the same recipe as that would be infringement, but you are quite welcome to come up with your own design to fill the gap.

The above has it.
Chapterhouse got busted for what? Selling parts compatible with Space Marines. Not even recasts. Just using the GW brand without permission.

theunicorn wrote:
Not if you are slogging those buns as being Wonder Bread buns. At that point it is infringement. And comparing buns and toy models is not accurate. A hot dog bun itself cannot be copyrighted. Companies use secret recipes to get around this, pushing their product as being superior as a result of said recipe. A model however very much can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alas, an analogy hit me. You are right. You are more than welcome to bake your own hot dog buns. The model equivalent of which would be sculpting your OWN designs to meet your needs. You can't use the same recipe as that would be infringement, but you are quite welcome to come up with your own design to fill the gap.

Yeah okay but in that case wouldn't the point of it's not the same formula of plastic/resin/pewter/etc, that was mentioned earlier then absolve the illegal nature?

aerethan wrote:

theunicorn wrote:Let me pose a different question to you all.

You see an auction on eBay that is a recast.
Lets say a seller that you have watched for a month or two and (s)he only lists items every tues/wed with a private seller&buyer restrictions and the auctions were 24hour listings. every week you see the same lot of 30 chaos terminators get sold, and you see the buyers leave positive feedback.

Would you buy the product? even though you know its a garage recast.

I likely would if it were the right product at the right price and the right quality. More likely that I'd end up casting the part myself though as I have the facilities to.

Agreed on that issue.

But anyway I think if you recast plastic in plastic, and pewter in pewter, then don't brag about it in public and you should be fine.

Texas Instrument wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:
Also, you can't say they aren't entitled to jack (and be correct). The law is against you on this. They are, in fact, legally entitled to the income from that (insert model here) that you copied. Since they're the only legal producer of the item, they're legally entitled to the income for all copies of said item.

I'm calling shenanigans. The reason most people have listed that they recast is "because GW doesn't sell the item".

Say I recast 22 ig meltas, to cite a popular example. GW, for whatever reason, gets wind of it and their legal team takes me down for the cost they are out since I didn't buy it. Plus punitve blah blah blah...
So what am I paying for? 22 ig command boxes? I only recast the one arm, not the box that arm comes in. No civil court in the world would make that ruling.
So they charge me for what? 22 melts arm bits? Total comes to... Oh, they don't sell it. So they are out zero dollars.
Or would I get charged their cost to make 22 arms? Three bucks of plastic? And to get it they spent how much on lawyers?

That ("because GW doesn't sell the item") doesn't change the illegality of it, though.
Your example on Meltas was unfortunately incorrect, though. GW does sell them separately:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440277a&prodId=prod1400031
Granted, you'd have to convert your IG to carry these but, for legal purposes, they do create what you're casting.

Even if they didn't, however, the fact is that GW still owns the rights to that bit. It is their legal option to make it available or simply "sit" on the copyrighted piece (like car manufacturers do with technology to improve MPG). Just because they are not producing it, that does not give you a legal option to make copies of their piece, regardless what you intend to do with it.

aerethan wrote:the sales lost is not all they will sue you for. They will sue for punitive damages, as well as likely legal fees.

Keep in mind that the only reason they WOULD sue someone for recasting would be to make an example of them, as a certain lawsuit comes to mind. It's not that they want their money back, it's that they want to instill fear into potential infringers.

You forget that it's not really about WHAT you copy, it's about the ACT of copying without permission.

A record company could sue you for illegally downloading a single song. That doesn't mean they want their $.99 for the song, they want damages and that same fear put into potential downloaders.

Agreed 100%.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:The only way that you're literally replicating the GW part is by casting the same part in the same medium. If your resin is different, it's not really the same thing that you've created is it? It looks the same, and performs the same function, but your resin might be 58% less likely to melt in a hot car.

This is false logic. You are replicating the item because you're copying it exactly. The medium you copy it in is irrelevant. It's still a copy.
The Choco-Nid we discussed earlier is a good example of this. It is a different medium than GW produces theirs in but, if the molds for the Choco-Nid were made from direct copies of GW IP, then it's still breaking the law. There is no legally correct justification for it.

Disarray wrote:Is it MORAL to sell a pack of 3 killa kanz, and only sell 1 of each of the 4 arms with the kit, with no option to get more gun arms?!

It's a [explicative edited] crime that's what that is....

There is no immorality or illegality about it.
GW is making available what they want to. It is not a moral decision. They did not choose that option because they wanted you to have an annoyance whilst trying to outfit your Kans.
It's definitely not a crime, either.

Texas Instrument wrote:The above has it.
Chapterhouse got busted for what? Selling parts compatible with Space Marines. Not even recasts. Just using the GW brand without permission.

CHS did not get "busted." They got sued. There was no "busting" involved.
As for the lawsuit, however, if you're keeping up with that thread, you see that they're doing quite well in the case & GW has an uphill battle. That's because GW has not been able to prove any of their vague claims yet. What CHS does is VERY different than making a mold of a particular GW piece and, really, has zero bearing on a discussion about recasting.

As has been said before, it's illegal. Just acknowledge that it is and keep on your merry way. Don't try using specious (at best) excuses to justify why you're not breaking the law.
It's like speeding. You know it's illegal. You're going to do it anyway. Just do it with the knowledge that it's illegal.


Eric

IANAL but knowing one that is a war gamer they told me that you can in fact recast your own miniatures you purchase with your own money but the second you make over 100 of them it is considered manufacturing. You are allowed to make duplicates as a back up so to speak, and of course for personal use. You are never allowed to resell them, and you can never produce more than 99 of a single model. He says it falls under some copyright laws passed back in the day that protected VHS and Cassette tapes. Where you can copy a record or CD to cassette all day long as long as you own it, but you are limited to making 99 copies of it. Once you hit 100 the courts viewed that as manufacturing.

This of course was years ago I was told this. Who knows how IP law has changed. I am sure it has changed a ton given the giant push of technology and how easy it is to pirate things these days.

After reading through the thread I get the feelling that those who are saying it's legal to recast for personal use are assuming this to be true based on the laws regarding backing up your music.

Although I do respect the law, I do think it's cruel that GW sometimes sells their kits with a less than ideal amount of parts. It's intentionally done by them so you buy more kits. Sorry, I'm not spending $50 for 2 more psycannons!

Infreak wrote:After reading through the thread I get the feelling that those who are saying it's legal to recast for personal use are assuming this to be true based on the laws regarding backing up your music.

Actually, the law is always behind technology. The DCMA didn't come out until 1999 and had so many pages mentioning cassette tapes. A lot of copyright laws are very vague and are meant to cover a broad spectrum. You can technically reprint a piece of art you purchase for your personal use, as long as you paid for it. Same thing with images. Models/sculptures/miniatures fall under that clause, which is why a lot of people say you can recast for personal use.

Like I mentioned earlier this is coming from a lawyer who was also a war gamer, though it was a long time ago and I cannot validate how accurate they were. They could have been talking out their butt for all I really know.

It's completely fine, now excuse me while I pirate some videos and music.

I've read through all four pages of this so far and I'm really surprised only one person had a serious and thought out response dealing with the direct overhead cost to actually cast a high quality replication. It's not something the average person is going to do on a large scale.

I also noticed a lot of people arguing on the same level but on different pages. Some people defending their opinion to not spend an exorbitant amount of money on accessories, against people who's arguments are against the full replication and sale of, including brand naming etc.

My opinion, As a hobbyist and an artist who has dealt with IP for years.; Que wall of text.

I'm going to dip into the morality of this mostly. Speaking only of the act of casting itself: The legal of it is it's illegal to cast a GW product for any reason, though ironically it's not illegal to make a recast of a recast. Using the GW name on recasts or even your own models is super illegal but no one is disputing that. To be honest, I don't blame anyone who feels the need to recast things like heavy weapons. People saying GW has a right as business to package however they want, they are correct too. I'm not on the "I hate GW" bandwagon, but I can look at things objectively. They are a business to make money and I have no naive ideals about this and I'm not going to whine that they should give more to the community who feels entitled to it, BUT I will say they shouldn't take advantage of those people either. There is a very fine balance of respect that needs to be kept between company and consumer. We don't NEED to play these games, but a lot of us have been for up to 10+ years. There's a lot of money already invested to just say "I'm done, it's too much". The boxing and pricing scheme of GW products specifically has shifted to targeting the competitive fanbase. People who will buy X more boxes just to get the extra bits out of them. With the state of the game, a lot of weapon/gear options that come in mass in most box sets are almost worthless, half of the player base will be swapping them out. Lets also keep in mind since this is mainly targeted at games-workshop. With the scale of production GW works on, their profit margins are immense when compared to someone like corvus belli or sodapop. It's not unreasonable to expect that if a Codex says you can have a max of X weapons in X squad. The box you buy of them should in a perfect world, include all of them. Why? because the customer will see it as much more of a slap in the face because it doesn't cost GW that much more to package them together but they choose to sacrifice loyalty sales for greater profit margins.

Just to add to the semantics on casting. I bring up this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/301577.page

It's a fantastic reproduction of the oop Ambull model. Almost 100% spot on to the original. Leaving out the part where it's OOP (The law becomes very fuzzy there in regards to all things OOP, coming down to who owns the copyrights to the design) Depending on how good the trademark is on the aesthetic, doing the same thing with say an AOBR Marine would be illegal.

The fact that GW sells green stuff and encourages scratch building adds another dynamic to this discussion. An artist with this kind of talent could buy enough green stuff and sculpt an entire forgeworld army if they wanted to. Everything could be bought from a GW store, even the sculpting tools. How would you feel about this? Is it ok because they spent 400 hours sculpting every one? They are replicated just the same just not as fast as casting is. What's the difference if you sculpted up your whole sprew and cast a series of them? Since GW does have a very open scratch build policy. They even have a very big article about scratch building apoc vehicles and making data sheets for them on the website. I'm pretty sure they could go into a GW and use them.

I am quite possibly mistaken in my information, but I was always under the assumption that there are no legal issues with casting parts of models as long as you are not SELLING them or making any sort of profit from the casts. Even if I am mistaken here, if you cast parts of models for yourself only, nobody will ever know assuming you paint it. Also, there are things that GW does not make such as aquilas. I have a press mold of a double-headed eagle that cannot be purchased from GW. I make GS press casts of it for terrain applications. Is that illegal? I doubt it. Immoral? Certainly not.

On the topic of the morality, however, that is such an individual metric. What is immoral to you? As far as I am concerned, if you buy a box of IG, for example, then cast up an entire army from them, I think that that is morally wrong. Need 22 meltas? Whatever. Knock them out.



Ghidorah

Respectfully, Crom, you're repeating something you heard from someone long ago. If you're not the lawyer yourself, everything you say regarding legality should be taken with a grain of salt.

I've paid a lot of attention to the lawyers who pop into these threads over the years and the idea that making up to a certain number of copies has never come up. Their answers tend to be pretty cut & dried.
Additionally, the "100 copies" thing doesn't make sense. If you're making a copy for back up, you don't need more than one. So, even if copying minis from a specific company were legal for the purposes of making back up copies, I feel certain that the law would be specific about how they were used (can't be painted, etc) and that no more than one copy could be made.

@CopernicusRex (Very cool User ID, BTW lol)
There's a lot of wisdom in your post. I found myself nodding along to most of it.

Thanks for including the Ambull link. I'd never seen the thread before, and it was quite interesting.

I think there are too many variables for your "sculpting" dilemma to be addressed intelligently. For example, are the sculpts identical to GW/FW models or are they representations of them, done in the sculptor's own style?
Sculpting exact copies of GW models is not the same as scratch-building.

This is a scratch built model (uses GW parts):


This is a (very VERY cool) scratch built model (uses NO GW parts):


(Both images were located with a Google Images search. Lack of credit not meant as disrespect towards their respective creators.)

By the current GW official guidelines, BOTH are welcome in a GW store.

These models contain illegally recast GW parts:

(The thread: http://chaos-dwarfs.com/forum/printthread.php?tid=4275)

The Chaos Dwarves in the above image would NOT be welcome in a GW store (officially), if/when the recast nature of those bits came to light.
That is the difference.
If you sculpted something that looked different than GW IP, I'd imagine it would be treated like the 2 scratch builds. If it was an identical copy, though, I suspect it would be treated like the models in the 3rd image.

@Gid:
Your information, according to the Dakkite lawyers, was mistaken. Illegal copies are illegal copies, regardless of their purpose.
Also, GW does make aquilas. Perhaps not in the size you want, but they make them. You can get them on tank sprues from GW or brass bits from ForgeWorld.
Making your own press cast, if the copied aquila was commercially produced by someone other than you is probably technically illegal. If it's not a GW aquila and you're using it for personal purposes, though, you are unlikely to see repercussions.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:
1) It is their legal option to make it available or simply "sit" on the copyrighted piece (like car manufacturers do with technology to improve MPG).

2) You are replicating the item because you're copying it exactly. The medium you copy it in is irrelevant. It's still a copy.
The Choco-Nid we discussed earlier is a good example of this. It is a different medium than GW produces theirs in but, if the molds for the Choco-Nid were made from direct copies of GW IP, then it's still breaking the law. There is no legally correct justification for it.

3) They did not choose that option because they wanted you to have an annoyance whilst trying to outfit your Kans.
It's definitely not a crime, either.


4) CHS did not get "busted." They got sued. There was no "busting" involved.

Ok, you seem to be very coherent with many of your arguments, but some of them (the above) are just as based in opinion or misinformed logic than those you're decrying. I added numbers to your quotes so as to address some of these points in order without a wall of text.

1) The MPG thing is just a little conspiracy theory, and interferes with the issue at hand. Can they? Absolutely. What is left for us who need the parts? Recasting. Their loss, and our risk, for what? Its senseless, ubiquitous, and so petty of a "crime" that it would be ridiculous to charge anyone, especially those not making a profit.

2) No recast is an exact copy. Its physically impossible on several levels. Even a vacuum sealed silicone mold over a model will produce a copy that is slightly larger than the original piece. The cavity left in the mold is larger than the piece being recast, so the filler pored in will occupy a larger space. A very, very small difference perhaps, but still a difference. Not a single atom of the outside surface area of a recast can be said to be in the exact same place as it would be on the original model.

3) No, but it is a gigantic middle finger to the people that purchase their products based on the ruleset that corresponds to the plastic. Its greed, plain and simple. Exploitative greed that drives those who can to seek their own solutions for the same cost as buying another box. Recasting supplies are pretty cheap.

4) Again, a very nitpicked distinction. I'm also embarassed to have said "busted", but not because "sued" is a better term. The past tense of "bust" is "burst", and "busted" is an incorrect conjugation or a colloquialism. Since we're seeking proper definitions here. The CHS case is more GW greed, albeit legally entitled greed, and them being sore about 3rd party developers. The only reason that upsets me is that I thought those were traditionally American values.

Very nice post MagicalMemories, I like that you illustrated your examples well (& thank you for the compliment!) I definitely agree with you.

I did know there were so many variables in a home sculpt when I had made the statement but it wasn't intended to be an all encompassing statement. More or less just some food for thought. I had only used forgeworld as an example for the very obvious cost difference. So for the sake of discussion I am only referencing the scratch building as replicating 1:1 without adding any of your own design into it (Which is still table legal by GW rules afaik).The "argument" here really is so broad, compartmentalizing it is difficult. The fact that they allow scratch built things to exist even if they contain no games workshop products adds a new inherent quality to this discussion.

Though in the end I see it all as a farce really, There are a lot of people out there and especially here on Dakka who "could" replicate with modeling clay, within a very accurate measurement what an amateur cast would be. The dwarf image you posted above really illustrates what I'm getting at also pretty well. If those heads weren't cast and were just sculpted out of Greenstuff, there would be no problem at all. The person doing this is essentially coming to the same end result. Putting a usable model on the table for play that hasn't come from games workshop. Somehow the act of pouring resin or solder into a mold at home changes the whole thing.

Is it the ends or the means? I don't think dakka will come to a conclusive answer but It's definitely healthy discussion for sure.

insaniak wrote:



If hotdogs come in packs of 8, and hotdog buns come in packs of 6, does that make it ok for you to steal the extra two buns, because you think they should have been in there in the first place?

What you personally feel entitled to and what the law says is ok are not the same thing.


(And before anyone chimes on on that point, no, I'm not saying recasting is exactly the same as stealing... legally, they're two distinct and different things.)

If I bake my own hot dog buns am I morally repugnant for not buying Wonder Bread Buns?

augustus5 wrote:

insaniak wrote:



If hotdogs come in packs of 8, and hotdog buns come in packs of 6, does that make it ok for you to steal the extra two buns, because you think they should have been in there in the first place?

What you personally feel entitled to and what the law says is ok are not the same thing.


(And before anyone chimes on on that point, no, I'm not saying recasting is exactly the same as stealing... legally, they're two distinct and different things.)

If I bake my own hot dog buns am I morally repugnant for not buying Wonder Bread Buns?

I already made the distinction that baking your own buns is equivalent to sculpting your own models, and the infringement would be if you were claiming said buns to be actual Wonder Bread buns.

No one is stopping you from sculpting your OWN designed models. Then again, no one is really stopping you from recasting GW either.

To address the OP:

1) If you have a miniature is it legal to recast it? (or are you infringing on copyright etc?)

No, it's not legal. Yes, you are infringing copyright.

For those who have raised the issue that it's a "backup", this only applies to computer software. See 17 USC 117.

For those asserting "fair use," there is a lot more to fair use than "personal use." There are four parts to fair use that the court balances to determine if the use is "fair":

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
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
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Numbers 2, 3, and 4 weigh against fair use. Personal use under #1 might weigh in favor of fair use (although I can think of some good reasons why it wouldn't). Considering that allowing recasting would virtually destroy GW's market, I'm pretty sure the court would say it's not fair use.

I don't think it matters for personal use. I suppose it technically is illegal, but if you're doing stuff for personal use then it doesn't matter.

Military modellers recast stuff frequently, if they need multiple copies of wheels they will whip up a load from just the one. Now okay, the wheels of a tank are an object in the public domain unlike the space marines of GW, but you are still reproducing someone's specific sculpt.

People get in a pious twist about recasting and love to wag a finger at others. It's a hobby, you do what you like and as long you aren't harming the hobby (which turning your recasts to a profit arguably does) you're morally in the clear.

The only case I can think of when I would knowingly buy a recast is if the model was very rare or out of production. But a part of me would want to know it was a recast, I don't want to be fooled into paying proper prices for a recast.

Question: Let's say that someone is selling recasts of an OOP part or model, but he lets it be known it is a recast. Would this be shut down on eBay? Would you be morally opposed to it?

Amen Howard. And for those who suspect, my 6th edition Empire infantry shall one day rule the field of battle. Only about 100 more casts to go!

If you morally object, or even legally object, take a look at the pajama party that is the current Empire infantry then come back to me. Slash and puff must go on!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nectarprime wrote:Question: Let's say that someone is selling recasts of an OOP part or model, but he lets it be known it is a recast. Would this be shut down on eBay? Would you be morally opposed to it?

Yes it would be likely shut down.

No I am not morally opposed to it, more so in the case of OOP stuff instead of rare items where you have to buy a $50 model to get 1 specific piece.

nectarprime wrote:Question: Let's say that someone is selling recasts of an OOP part or model, but he lets it be known it is a recast. Would this be shut down on eBay? Would you be morally opposed to it?

It would be shut down on eBay because recasting is still illegal even on OOP stuff.

As for the 'moral' question, it sort of depends on individual circumstances. For instance, whipping up a few copies of a very rare figure and passing them off as the real thing for high profit is wrong IMO, it's fraudulent and dishonest.

But if I was at a wargames show and found a recast figure in the 'bring and buy', a rare one or something I really wanted then sure I would pay a couple of quid for it. I'm only really into OOP stuff anyway, I wouldn't be interested in buying recasts of current stuff because I can get it in a shop any time I want, it's not 'rare'. I wouldn't buy a recast because it's cheap, I'd buy it because the item is not generally available, ie OOP. I wouldn't immediately turn a recast down just for being a recast, it might be a decent quality recast and it might be a fair price. I'm talking hypotheticals here, I know I have a few recasts in my collection but in reality I don't see that many of them around being offered for sale. But I have picked up a couple in bulk buys of figures, I'm certainly not throwing them away 'on principle'.

This is a recast... I think. Came with a load of Marines which are definitely kosher. Hard to be sure, but I'm not throwing him out and buying one for £10+ on eBay.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v201/howardtreesong/DSCF3957-1.jpg

It is NOT illegal to recast stuff for your own personal use. If I buy a CD and make a copy of it for every vehicle I own, it's perfectly legal. If I buy some space marines and copy them for my own personal army, there's not a darn thing they can do about it. They can have my models when they are done prying my shotgun from my cold dead hands. The people white knighting in here aren't even the real white knights. The actual moral response to all this is that we (in America at least) have the freedom to do almost anything we want in our own homes, and nobody can stop that. Games Workshop is from the UK, the land of security cameras and regulation along with the rest of europe, and as much as they resent the fact that America is what it is, they will never be able to control and that's that. End of thread.

DODcrazy wrote:It is NOT illegal to recast stuff for your own personal use.

EDIT: ok, having read the entirety of your post it's clear that you have no clue what you are talking about. GW is very much a company here in the US as well, and US law applies to it.

And no, you DO NOT have the right to do whatever you want in your own home. You live in THIS country and must abide by it's rules or suffer the penalties for breaking said rules.

EDIT 2: and yes, it is very much illegal for personal use.

Its illegal, and I have no morals so there.

There could be a IP lawyer in my garage yelling laws at me while I was casting and the most it would maybe make me do is fling the brush I use to apply rubber mold at his expensive suit.

Texas Instrument wrote:Ok, you seem to be very coherent with many of your arguments, but some of them (the above) are just as based in opinion or misinformed logic than those you're decrying. I added numbers to your quotes so as to address some of these points in order without a wall of text.

I like disagreeing, even if only on minor points, with someone who doesn't take said disagreement personally.
It's a nice change for the internet. LOL
That said, I maintain that you're mistaken.

1) The MPG thing is just a little conspiracy theory, and interferes with the issue at hand. Can they? Absolutely. What is left for us who need the parts? Recasting. Their loss, and our risk, for what? Its senseless, ubiquitous, and so petty of a "crime" that it would be ridiculous to charge anyone, especially those not making a profit.

Actually, if you do the research, you'll see that various automobile manufacturers, if not all of them, own patents (which they purchased from the original creators) with which they are doing nothing to use or develop. There's no consipiracy in my post and, although there are conspiracy theorists out there, I don't think it's any more "BS" of a theory than some of the ones I've heard online. : )
That said, I acknowledge that it's really not relevant to the discussion at hand any more than as an example of how GW is not the only company not using things they own the rights to. I meant it only to show that GW's not being stingy with it any more than any other company.
As for the text I emphasized in red, I have no disagreement. My points on here are purely meant to express the facts behind the situation as best I can. Like I said earlier, I have little problem with recasting and NO problem with recasting of OOP stuff.

2) No recast is an exact copy. Its physically impossible on several levels. Even a vacuum sealed silicone mold over a model will produce a copy that is slightly larger than the original piece. The cavity left in the mold is larger than the piece being recast, so the filler pored in will occupy a larger space. A very, very small difference perhaps, but still a difference. Not a single atom of the outside surface area of a recast can be said to be in the exact same place as it would be on the original model.

I don't know enough about the process to definitively agree or not. Presuming you're correct, however, you're just talking about semantics. *IF* any recasting is illegal *AND* you recast *AND* you get caught *AND* you use the above defense in court, you will lose your case. Just because your copy was an imperfect one, it is still a copy.
If you take the word "exactly" from my post, the message is still the same.

3) No, but it is a gigantic middle finger to the people that purchase their products based on the ruleset that corresponds to the plastic. Its greed, plain and simple. Exploitative greed that drives those who can to seek their own solutions for the same cost as buying another box. Recasting supplies are pretty cheap.

Okay. How can I disagree with a point that makes me LOL so handily? : )
I won't necessarily agree that it's greed that causes them to do it... but I won't disagree, either. I don't presume to know GW's mindset and, while I doubt greed is the mitigating factor, I don't pretend to know.
Unintentional or not, I agree that we're getting a huge "bird" flipped our way.

4) Again, a very nitpicked distinction. I'm also embarassed to have said "busted", but not because "sued" is a better term. The past tense of "bust" is "burst", and "busted" is an incorrect conjugation or a colloquialism. Since we're seeking proper definitions here. The CHS case is more GW greed, albeit legally entitled greed, and them being sore about 3rd party developers. The only reason that upsets me is that I thought those were traditionally American values.

Not sure whose distinction you're saying is nitpicked. Since, IMO, your point would seem closer to nitpicked than mine, I'll presume you're being self-critical in the preface of the comment. if I'm wrong, LMK.
Presuming that... I think you're being too hard on yourself, re: busted. Now, I looked this up, so as to not be "talking out of my a**;" At least one online dictionary lists "busted" as a form of "bust." Plus, if your buddy gets pulled over by the cops, you're not going to point and laugh at him because he got "burst for speeding." ; )
So, even if a colloquialism, I don't think it's a poor word choice.
On topic:
I still refuse to presume it's greed. I don't think any of us know enough about the internal workings of GW to say something like that as if it's fact.

That said, I think we should probably drop any further discussion of the CHS issue, lest the subject drag this topic too far out of hand.: )

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

augustus5 wrote:If I bake my own hot dog buns am I morally repugnant for not buying Wonder Bread Buns?

Nope... but the likelyhood that they're of equivalent or better quality than Wonder Bread is minimal. ; )

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I don't think it matters for personal use. I suppose it technically is illegal, but if you're doing stuff for personal use then it doesn't matter.

I agree but, IMO, I think it's important that we acknowledge that the blue text is a matter of our opinions on morality, rather than facts about legality.

Howard A Treesong wrote:The only case I can think of when I would knowingly buy a recast is if the model was very rare or out of production. But a part of me would want to know it was a recast, I don't want to be fooled into paying proper prices for a recast.

Agreed.
I won't say I haven't/wouldn't bought/buy recasts. I won't say I haven't/wouldn't paid/pay someone to recast something for me that was not available for purchase for whatever reason. My morality, though, insists that (a) I know I'm getting a recast and (b) I do not sell the recasts for profit.


Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nectarprime wrote:Question: Let's say that someone is selling recasts of an OOP part or model, but he lets it be known it is a recast. Would this be shut down on eBay? Would you be morally opposed to it?

In order... Yes and No.

Eric

Texas Instrument wrote:There could be a IP lawyer in my garage yelling laws at me while I was casting and the most it would maybe make me do is fling the brush I use to apply rubber mold at his expensive suit.

Most IP lawyers don't have expensive suits.

I buy mine on sale from Jos. A Banks. $150 for a suit sure as heck isn't expensive, as far as suits go.

DODcrazy wrote:It is NOT illegal to recast stuff for your own personal use.

Please, cite your legal sources or tell us your credentials that support you making this factual statement... Otherwise, please qualify it as an opinion.

DODcrazy wrote:The actual moral response to all this is that we (in America at least) have the freedom to do almost anything we want in our own homes, and nobody can stop that.

That's not true. We do not have the freedom to do almost anything we want, we have the ability. That does not change, based on location. You don't have the freedom to cut up gay men after "romping" with them and keep them in your freezer until you get around to eating them, for example. Ask Jeffrey Dahmer. Okay... you can't actually ask him. He was killed in prison... but you get it.
Don't mistake the ability to do something for the freedom to do it.

DODcrazy wrote:Games Workshop is from the UK, the land of security cameras and regulation along with the rest of europe, and as much as they resent the fact that America is what it is, they will never be able to control and that's that.

DODcrazy wrote:End of thread.

Both of those statements are just absurd and have no bearing on the subject at hand.

I don't know if that's a sincere post or a thinly veiled attempt at trolling the thread. *IF* you're trolling, however, I'd like to ask you to stop now.
If not... my apologies.

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

theunicorn wrote:Its illegal, and I have no morals so there.

Texas Instrument wrote:There could be a IP lawyer in my garage yelling laws at me while I was casting and the most it would maybe make me do is fling the brush I use to apply rubber mold at his expensive suit.

My name is Eric, and I approve these posts.

Eric

CopernicusRex wrote:It's not unreasonable to expect that if a Codex says you can have a max of X weapons in X squad. The box you buy of them should in a perfect world, include all of them. Why? because the customer will see it as much more of a slap in the face because it doesn't cost GW that much more to package them together but they choose to sacrifice loyalty sales for greater profit margins.

In some case, it could cost GW considerably more to include all of the possible options.

It's popular to assume that the lack of such options in boxes is a deliberate attempt to sell more kits. And in some cases it is even (to some extent) backed up by the kit... The Genestealer sprue, for example, could certainly have included enough of each biomorph head for the entire brood, instead of including useless terrain pieces.

But in a lot of cases, they're limited by what they can fit on the sprue, and how many sprues fit in a box. It's not always just a matter of adding extra parts... An extra sprue in a kit is increasing your initial production cost, which is significant when an army's production budget only allows for so many new sprues.

Just to add to the semantics on casting. I bring up this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/301577.page

It's a fantastic reproduction of the oop Ambull model. Almost 100% spot on to the original. Leaving out the part where it's OOP (The law becomes very fuzzy there in regards to all things OOP, coming down to who owns the copyrights to the design) Depending on how good the trademark is on the aesthetic, doing the same thing with say an AOBR Marine would be illegal.

If you have a look at GW's legal page, they actually specifically allow one-off conversions and scratch-builds. So there is no legal issue there until you start casting.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Military modellers recast stuff frequently, if they need multiple copies of wheels they will whip up a load from just the one. Now okay, the wheels of a tank are an object in the public domain unlike the space marines of GW, but you are still reproducing someone's specific sculpt.

Military modelling is a whole different issue, as the IP is in very muddy territory, and there are generally a whole bunch of different companies making variations on the same vehicles. So even if you can prove which kit the caster is using as his master, the greyness over ownership of the IP makes taking legal action over it practically impossible.

MagickalMemories wrote:

Texas Instrument wrote:There could be a IP lawyer in my garage yelling laws at me while I was casting and the most it would maybe make me do is fling the brush I use to apply rubber mold at his expensive suit.

My name is Eric, and I approve these posts.

Eric

[Mod Edit - Please do not advocate that type of practice here on Dakka Dakka. Thanks!]

Now what I want to know is this...

If you have the skill, time and ability to cast fiddley little bitz well enough and in a large enough quantity that folks would get het-up about re-casting IP protected material...

Why aren't you just selling your skills and services as a Caster, and using the profits you generate from that to buy the official stuff?

insaniak wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Military modellers recast stuff frequently, if they need multiple copies of wheels they will whip up a load from just the one. Now okay, the wheels of a tank are an object in the public domain unlike the space marines of GW, but you are still reproducing someone's specific sculpt.

Military modelling is a whole different issue, as the IP is in very muddy territory, and there are generally a whole bunch of different companies making variations on the same vehicles. So even if you can prove which kit the caster is using as his master, the greyness over ownership of the IP makes taking legal action over it practically impossible.

Well you're always entitled to make your own wheels and recast them, that's what all companies do. Putting burden of proof to one side I still think you would be on the wrong side of the law recasting someone else's kit even if the vehicle depicted is in the public domain. The kit is still someone else's image of that vehicle, you can't just recast a load of Tamiya wheels and start selling them because they don't own the rights to a Sherman tank, they sculpted those wheels, it's their scale interpretation of them.

Technically, yes, (or at least, probably... ) ... but the point is that it's never likely to actually be an issue with military kits because it would be so difficult to actually enforce.

For Sci Fi and Fantasy models, where both the IP and individual copyright ownership is generally a little clearer, it's easier to prove that something is actually cast off your model.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
What exactly is "slogging"?

It's doing something that takes a long time to do it as in the phrase "slogging away", usually in reference to working in a dedicated fashion or footslogging such as soldiers that march huge distances.
In the sense being used here in reference to selling something, it likely goes back to street vendors slogging away (working hard) to sell their products.

Thats "Flogging" if you're selling something.

insaniak wrote:Technically, yes, (or at least, probably... ) ... but the point is that it's never likely to actually be an issue with military kits because it would be so difficult to actually enforce.

For Sci Fi and Fantasy models, where both the IP and individual copyright ownership is generally a little clearer, it's easier to prove that something is actually cast off your model.

Particularly as the popularity for cast parts is that they include army specific details like aquilas, scarabs, wolf heads and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Texas Instrument wrote:Thats "Flogging" if you're selling something.

I'm aware of the word flogging thankyou. I stand by what I typed.

biccat wrote:Numbers 2, 3, and 4 weigh against fair use. Personal use under #1 might weigh in favor of fair use (although I can think of some good reasons why it wouldn't). Considering that allowing recasting would virtually destroy GW's market, I'm pretty sure the court would say it's not fair use.

Recasting for personal use would and does never impact GW significantly.

Personal use recasting does not have plastic capabilities.
It is difficult.
It is time consuming.
It requires knowledge of casting skills.
It suffers at least a minor degradation in quality.

It is not practical for the average wargamer to engage in. For small bits, it is a boon for the advanced hobbiest.

Hmm.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=&categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&start=4

I have been reading this thread for a while now, and decided to see what GW has to say about the entire thing (see above link). From a layman's perspective, it looks like almost everyone on Dakka is in violation of GW IP in one way or another (myself included since I am not crediting my miniatures as being GW IP and painted by me). It's a dizzying read, a lot of ambiguity, but bottom line is that it appears that absolutely everything about being involved in this hobby is illegal and we should all turn ourselves in right now.

*edit- in fact I probably just broke the law by posting that link*

So scratch making meltas is A-ok with GW (even though technically they lost money cause I didnt buy their product to play their game) so casting said scratch-build meltas would also be A-ok. If i took a melta and modified it with green stuff to make it look cooler and what not (extended barrel, pistol grip, added sites, extra cooling pipes, chaos mod, etc, etc) and then cast THAT 8 times for my squad is it then considered a scracth-build (A-ok) or would it be considered a recast (illegal). Would they want me to actually have enough melta and have to mod all those melta's which would be a lot more work than doing it once and recasting it.

keisukekun wrote:So scratch making meltas is A-ok with GW (even though technically they lost money cause I didnt buy their product to play their game) so casting said scratch-build meltas would also be A-ok.

Not quite.

Scratchbuilding a meltagun is ok with GW, particularly if you do so in order to make a meltagun that is a little different to the normal one. Casting that meltagun is not.
Scratchbuilding something that is vaguely similar to a meltagun is also ok. Casting that 'I can't believe it's not a meltagun' is potentially ok, depending on just how similar it is to the GW design.

If i took a melta and modified it with green stuff to make it look cooler and what not (extended barrel, pistol grip, added sites, extra cooling pipes, chaos mod, etc, etc) and then cast THAT 8 times for my squad is it then considered a scracth-build (A-ok) or would it be considered a recast (illegal).

If you cast it, you're casting, not scratchbuilding. Only the one that was actually scratch-built is scratch-built.

Anvildude wrote:Now what I want to know is this...

If you have the skill, time and ability to cast fiddley little bitz well enough and in a large enough quantity that folks would get het-up about re-casting IP protected material...

Why aren't you just selling your skills and services as a Caster, and using the profits you generate from that to buy the official stuff?

The irony being that my services as a casting house are mostly used for recasting GW bits that are OOP. And for personal use, as I said before it's mostly OOP stuff that I do. My 6th edition Empire soldiers for instance.

insaniak wrote:
1: It's popular to assume that the lack of such options in boxes is a deliberate attempt to sell more kits. And in some cases it is even (to some extent) backed up by the kit... The Genestealer sprue, for example, could certainly have included enough of each biomorph head for the entire brood, instead of including useless terrain pieces.

But in a lot of cases, they're limited by what they can fit on the sprue, and how many sprues fit in a box. It's not always just a matter of adding extra parts... An extra sprue in a kit is increasing your initial production cost, which is significant when an army's production budget only allows for so many new sprues.

2: If you have a look at GW's legal page, they actually specifically allow one-off conversions and scratch-builds. So there is no legal issue there until you start casting.

1. Not really looking for an argument over the reality of GW's overhead and profit margin. What you say is correct but I think we have differing opinions on the specific "significant cost".

My quote was taken out of context. The reality of the situation and what people will perceive is what I was getting at. I fully realize the limitations of mass production especially in this case, I really don't want to derail this thread with all of that. In the end they make a product, it's the responsibility of their designers to make sure that they can make a quality product with the cost/profit ratio they want. At the end of he day if the customer isn't happy with it, they aren't happy. People wouldn't feel the need to start casting at all if it weren't worth-wile it for them to do.

2. I did see the legal page after I had made my post. That really mucks things up, because it brings individual interpretation into it. When I mentioned the ambull I didn't mean to insinuate anything he did was illegal, actually it's 100% legal. though I was intending to poke holes in the logic that the way you go about replicating somehow becomes a menacing act once you bring a mold into it.


Edit: It was just brought to my attention that White Dwarf had possibly even published a how to on molding and casting with green stuff. I'll have to see if I have the magazine somewhere still because I'm pretty sure I remember this.

insaniak wrote:

keisukekun wrote:So scratch making meltas is A-ok with GW (even though technically they lost money cause I didnt buy their product to play their game) so casting said scratch-build meltas would also be A-ok.

Not quite.

Scratchbuilding a meltagun is ok with GW, particularly if you do so in order to make a meltagun that is a little different to the normal one. Casting that meltagun is not.
Scratchbuilding something that is vaguely similar to a meltagun is also ok. Casting that 'I can't believe it's not a meltagun' is potentially ok, depending on just how similar it is to the GW design.

If i took a melta and modified it with green stuff to make it look cooler and what not (extended barrel, pistol grip, added sites, extra cooling pipes, chaos mod, etc, etc) and then cast THAT 8 times for my squad is it then considered a scracth-build (A-ok) or would it be considered a recast (illegal).

If you cast it, you're casting, not scratchbuilding. Only the one that was actually scratch-built is scratch-built.

?...Bascially what you saying that GW doesnt want me to cast anything even if its something ive designed my self from scrap. That doesnt seem very fair, as long as it meets the x% rule the custom meltas that I designed from scrap and then cast copies of shouldnt be an issue. Im not a chinese sweat shop and dont wanna crank out 10 or 20 some odd copies of the same thing by hand. As long as Im not casting THEIR design or product and not creating whole knockoffs to sell, if its something I designed my self I shoudl be able to do with it as i see fit short of selling them as GW melta's.

CopernicusRex wrote:That really mucks things up, because it brings individual interpretation into it.

Which is ultimately what IP law is all about.

... though I was intending to poke holes in the logic that the way you go about replicating somehow becomes a menacing act once you bring a mold into it.

And ordinarily, that would have been a valid point. The method of reproduction generally doesn't change the fact that what you are doing is reproducing something. I had a bit of a battle over that one back when I worked in a photo lab, as several of the people I worked with thought it was acceptable to tell people who wanted copies of professional photographs that while we legally couldn't make copies of the original photograph (which we couldn't) if the customer went home and photographed the original, we could print that (which technically we couldn't, since it was still just reproducing the original...)

In this specific case, though, GW grant limited rights to tinker with their IP under certain specific circumstances. Namely, that you can build one-off conversions, but can't make production line reproductions.

Exactly where the line between those two lies is, as you say, down to personal interpretation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

keisukekun wrote:?...Bascially what you saying that GW doesnt want me to cast anything even if its something ive designed my self from scrap.

No, what I'm saying is that GW doesn't mind you reproducing their IP, so long as you're doing so for one-off conversions, and not casting it.

It's not just GW that says you can't cast something that is based on their IP... it's IP law that says that.

If you create something that is entirely your own design (or at least different enough from GW's design to count as your own), you can of course do whatever you want with it.

Hmmm. So I can sweat it out and make 20 copies of my "one-off" conversion or scratchbuilt melta and be in the clear, but if I cast one to save time im breaking the law. Seems like a lot of work.

keisukekun wrote:Hmmm. So I can sweat it out and make 20 copies of my "one-off" conversion or scratchbuilt melta and be in the clear, .

Not necessarily, no. If all 20 of your weapons are the same, you're potentially running into that 'production lining' territory. The permission GW give on their legal page is for one-off conversions. Making the same thing 20 times hardly seems to qualify as a one-off...

Of course, whether or not anything on GW's legal page is legally enforcable is a whole 'nother can'o'worms.

Casting and mold making itself is a lot of work. Perhaps less than sculpting 20 meltas, but the learning curve costs both time and money in wasted rubber and miscast resin.

IF you are a quick learner then you'd still be looking at about $60 to learn how to make decent molds, and then another $60 in learning how to cast resin. Then there are still going to be miscasts once you know what you are doing unless the mold is insanely simple in nature.

So you're looking at about $120 just to get to the point where you can make decent replicas of your melta. Some people would rather sculpt 20 by hand than spend that amount of money for $6 meltas.

Now I've taken the time and money to learn the whole process. I did it first because I wanted custom bases for my high elves and I already had masters sculpted by myself.
Making 2 part molds was an entirely different beast that ended up costing me a good pound or 2 of rubber before I got the hang of it.

Trust me when I say that recasting IS a lot of work.

insaniak wrote:

keisukekun wrote:Hmmm. So I can sweat it out and make 20 copies of my "one-off" conversion or scratchbuilt melta and be in the clear, .

Not necessarily, no. If all 20 of your weapons are the same, you're potentially running into that 'production lining' territory. The permission GW give on their legal page is for one-off conversions. Making the same thing 20 times hardly seems to qualify as a one-off...

Of course, whether or not anything on GW's legal page is legally enforcable is a whole 'nother can'o'worms.

Sooo if I make 20 meltas by hand but they arent the same then its ok. Or is just scratch-making a lot of some bit or another so I dont have buy it in and of itself a violation. If someone starts an army and slowly expands it over time then they could theoretically build up a large amount of scratchbuilt weapons if they dont buy extra kits just for the weapons they need so that number could easily go over 40 or 50 scratchbuilt "one-offs" in an apoc army.

Take something simple like the extended carapace or spores for tyranids. In a large army you could theoretically scratchbuild hundreds of those as they are really easy to do from scraps.

Does it make a difference if all these "one-off" scratchbuilt weapons are made of GW greenstuff and GW sprues/scraps?

keisukekun wrote:Sooo if I make 20 meltas by hand but they arent the same then its ok. Or is just scratch-making a lot of some bit or another so I dont have buy it in and of itself a violation. If someone starts an army and slowly expands it over time then they could theoretically build up a large amount of scratchbuilt weapons if they dont buy extra kits just for the weapons they need so that number could easily go over 40 or 50 scratchbuilt "one-offs" in an apoc army.

Take something simple like the extended carapace or spores for tyranids. In a large army you could theoretically scratchbuild hundreds of those as they are really easy to do from scraps.

Hence the 'down to personal interpretation' issue. I'm not a lawyer. More specifically, I'm not GW's lawyer. I have no idea exactly where they would draw the line, and whether the law would actually draw the line in the exact same place.

At the end of the day, however you make yourself those extra meltaguns, you're unlikely to find the police kicking down you door over it.

Does it make a difference if all these "one-off" scratchbuilt weapons are made of GW greenstuff and GW sprues/scraps?

There is no such thing as 'GW greenstuff'... It's regular Kneadatite in a GW blister.

Guys, here's the thing. Insaniak knows what he's talking about 95% of the time, at least.
Its not the best idea to sass a mod even during the other 5%.

The GW legal team has what you can/cannot do with their models sewn up pretty damn tightly.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=&categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&start=4

Quoting from their legal page,
Photos of Painted Models

We encourage fellow hobbyists to show off their painting skills by taking photos of their miniatures and putting the on the site. Please remember to correctly credit the IP - "miniature © Games Workshop 2003. All rights reserved. Used without permission - model painted by xxxxxxx"

Now, besides the fact that the GW lawyers cannot do basic proofreading ("putting the on the site"), they're explicit in how even pictures of their products may be used. You can only post pictures of models on the GW site, legally. You have to do an AP style works cited for the damn thing, and even say you did it without permission. Basically, they reserve the rights of GOD when it comes to minis. Should they so desire, they could make the entire Painting/modeling section of Dakka go away. They do not pursue this because Dakka IS breaking their rules on it, but do so in a fairly responsible way that does not harm GWs bottom line.

Basically, everyone here has broken GWs IP rules. You're in a forum thread discussing activities described as illegal by GWs legal page. By reading this sentence, you have broken IP law.

So you're already a criminal. Don't flaunt it and you won't be prosecuted for it.

Im not trying to say he doesnt know what hes talking about Im sure he does I was just trying to feel out what is allowed and what isnt and I've got a good idea of it. There seems to be a lot of restrictions but most peopel would be free of any issues unless GW feels like starting a Totalitarian regime.

aerethan wrote:

Trust me when I say that recasting IS a lot of work.

Resin Casting done right is an expensive hoby to learn and master. buying small amounts of bits is cheaper.
A vacuum chamber & Pump, and possibly a pressure pot to make quality casts really runs up the price, and quality.

@Aerethan when resin casting, what equipment and resins/silicon do you prefer.
I just got my vacuum chamber and pump. Previously I have used Alumilite's stater kit, and then some dow corning silicones. I then started casting in white metal and got quite good at 400 degree oven vulcanizing molds and gravity pours.

Texas Instrument wrote:Guys, here's the thing. Insaniak knows what he's talking about 95% of the time, at least.
Its not the best idea to sass a mod even during the other 5%.

The GW legal team has what you can/cannot do with their models sewn up pretty damn tightly.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=&categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&start=4

Quoting from their legal page,
Photos of Painted Models

We encourage fellow hobbyists to show off their painting skills by taking photos of their miniatures and putting the on the site. Please remember to correctly credit the IP - "miniature © Games Workshop 2003. All rights reserved. Used without permission - model painted by xxxxxxx"

Now, besides the fact that the GW lawyers cannot do basic proofreading ("putting the on the site"), they're explicit in how even pictures of their products may be used. You can only post pictures of models on the GW site, legally. You have to do an AP style works cited for the damn thing, and even say you did it without permission. Basically, they reserve the rights of GOD when it comes to minis. Should they so desire, they could make the entire Painting/modeling section of Dakka go away. They do not pursue this because Dakka IS breaking their rules on it, but do so in a fairly responsible way that does not harm GWs bottom line.

What GW claim in their 'IP rules' is completely different to reality. Just because they say how pictures of your figures can be used doesn't mean they are correct in their grasp of IP law.

They don't have a thing on Dakka's painting/modelling section of the galleries.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Texas Instrument wrote:Guys, here's the thing. Insaniak knows what he's talking about 95% of the time, at least.
Its not the best idea to sass a mod even during the other 5%.

The GW legal team has what you can/cannot do with their models sewn up pretty damn tightly.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=&categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&start=4

Quoting from their legal page,
Photos of Painted Models

We encourage fellow hobbyists to show off their painting skills by taking photos of their miniatures and putting the on the site. Please remember to correctly credit the IP - "miniature © Games Workshop 2003. All rights reserved. Used without permission - model painted by xxxxxxx"

Now, besides the fact that the GW lawyers cannot do basic proofreading ("putting the on the site"), they're explicit in how even pictures of their products may be used. You can only post pictures of models on the GW site, legally. You have to do an AP style works cited for the damn thing, and even say you did it without permission. Basically, they reserve the rights of GOD when it comes to minis. Should they so desire, they could make the entire Painting/modeling section of Dakka go away. They do not pursue this because Dakka IS breaking their rules on it, but do so in a fairly responsible way that does not harm GWs bottom line.

What GW claim in their 'IP rules' is completely different to reality. Just because they say how pictures of your figures can be used doesn't mean they are correct in their grasp of IP law.

They don't have a thing on Dakka's painting/modelling section of the galleries.

Sooooo maybe they are trying to start a totalitarian regime on wargaming

Different how? It's a product they own copyright on.
They can use it however they like. They can definitely restrict pictures of it how they wish.

That IS the reality.

Amuzingly, I got started in casting with white metals. I've only just now started doing resin, for custom bases.

theunicorn wrote:

aerethan wrote:

Trust me when I say that recasting IS a lot of work.

Resin Casting done right is an expensive hoby to learn and master. buying small amounts of bits is cheaper.
A vacuum chamber & Pump, and possibly a pressure pot to make quality casts really runs up the price, and quality.

@Aerethan when resin casting, what equipment and resins/silicon do you prefer.
I just got my vacuum chamber and pump. Previously I have used Alumilite's stater kit, and then some dow corning silicones. I then started casting in white metal and got quite good at 400 degree oven vulcanizing molds and gravity pours.

I use Smooth On products: Oomoo which is an rtv silicone rubber for my molds, and Smooth Cast 300 or 305 depending on what I'm casting and how fast I need to produce. E.g. for bases I use 300 which cures much faster so I can crank out alot, for things like weapons or anything in a 2 part mold I use 305 so that I have longer pot life to work out any pesky bubbles that may stick around. That said, Smooth Cast is for the most part self degassing unless you don't know how to mix properly.

I've never messed around with metal casting as the need hasn't presented itself.

I have also yet to take the plunge into a vacuum chamber which would definitely make casting in 2 part molds worlds easier. I mostly do small run casting for army specific projects, such as shoulder pads that someone needs 60 of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Texas Instrument wrote:Different how? It's a product they own copyright on.
They can use it however they like. They can definitely restrict pictures of it how they wish.

That IS the reality.

I would argue(sans law degree) that Fair Use would say that if you:

A. Own the model being photographed

B. Own the camera and masters of said photograph

then you are free to do with YOUR property as you wish, photographing included. My logic comes from things like celebrity pics which if they are taken lawfully are the sole property of the man behind the camera, not the person being snapped.

I doubt that any judge would agree with GW when they say that you can't photograph a product they SOLD you.

Again, this is opinion, I will bring it up with my IP lawyer friend next time I talk to him.

Well I did a little research and there are restrictions to taking pictures of copyrighted products. And I mean products not people. People cant copyright themselves so you can take pictures of them. Bassically if you take a picture of something copyrighted you have to obtain the permission of the owner of that product to display it even if you arent gonna gain anything from displaying it. Of course if your not making money off it they wont sue you though they could if they wanted to. Specifically to Dakka Dakka this applies to the person presenting the photo so uploading a photo to dakka dakka makes dakka dakka liable for it not the person who uploaded it. Dakka dakka has permission so they are ok.

Yup. You can take all the pics you have film for. But to display those pics in a public space? Different story.

Dakka p&m forums actually violate the gw permissions on this.
But not dakka. Us. See the difference?

To that end, feth GW and their IP stranglehold.

If you cast your own miniatures using the GW miniatures as a base, is fine, but probably not legal. in some countries, its ilegal to live in a warehouse. But nobody is going to find out. Same with some other things. Its called civil disobedience. Im sure its fine to cast your own minis, aslong as you dont sell them.

Texas Instrument wrote:Guys, here's the thing. Insaniak knows what he's talking about 95% of the time, at least.
Its not the best idea to sass a mod even during the other 5%.

Here's the other thing: Insaniak isn't an IP lawyer. While he's spent a bit of time researching this stuff due to it being important in two previous jobs and a personal business, he doesn't claim that his word is sacrosanct on this.
And disagreeing with somebody isn't 'sassing' them. People are perfectly welcome to have a different opinion.

Basically, everyone here has broken GWs IP rules. You're in a forum thread discussing activities described as illegal by GWs legal page. By reading this sentence, you have broken IP law.

GW's rules do not automatically equal IP Law.

I can set up a legal page on my own website stating that people wanting to repost my pictures elsewhere must do so while standing on their heads and wearing a tutu... that doesn't make it actual law.

But were you to take me to court over it, one of the things looked at would be who owns the subject material and what their wishes were.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law. I'm not sure that's an actual legal statute but hey, I'm 100% sure that if gw wanted to make an issue of it they could.
And they could make you stand on your head and wear a tutu as well, of that was in their accepted use statement.

Texas Instrument wrote:Yup. You can take all the pics you have film for. But to display those pics in a public space? Different story.

Dakka p&m forums actually violate the gw permissions on this.
But not dakka. Us. See the difference?

You're talking nonsense. I've seen GW models featured in other magazines, typically covering competition results at shows. They haven't received permission from GW to do that, nor any other model manufacturer. They don't need it. As for people putting photos of their own stuff up online... you're talking nonsense. What GW demand isn't a true and reasonable reflection of actual IP law so don't take what they say as gospel. Their 'accepted use' statement isn't legally binding just because they say so.

Its defintitely illegal but its hard to tell if its real or not depending on how well you do at it.

Texas Instrument wrote:But were you to take me to court over it, one of the things looked at would be who owns the subject material and what their wishes were.

And where those wishes are not backed up by actual law, the court would ignore them.

The whole point of IP law is to lay out what is and isn't allowed by law. While it's all somewhat open to interpretation, your own personal additions to it aren't legally enforceable.

insaniak wrote:

Texas Instrument wrote:But were you to take me to court over it, one of the things looked at would be who owns the subject material and what their wishes were.

And where those wishes are not backed up by actual law, the court would ignore them.

The whole point of IP law is to lay out what is and isn't allowed by law. While it's all somewhat open to interpretation, your own personal additions to it aren't legally enforceable.

Sweet. So there it is. Even though gw says that I cannot recast for personal use, the general fair use laws say I can.
Weird that general > specific in this case, makes me smile.

If you'll excuse me I'm going to cast chocolate nids.

Texas Instrument wrote:Sweet. So there it is. Even though gw says that I cannot recast for personal use, the general fair use laws say I can.

Except the Fair Use clause says nothing of the kind.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
People seem to want to take 'fair use' to mean that anything they do for personal use is ok. But that's not at all what the Fair Use clause does. It just gives guidelines for certain personal usages that are ok.

Texas Instrument wrote:If you'll excuse me I'm going to cast chocolate nids.

Yeah and if can send me a few

And so the moral of the story is thus: Go forth and recast, cause if you don't tell everyone it's a recast, use similiar materials, and paint it up nice then more power to you.

KingmanHighborn wrote:

Texas Instrument wrote:If you'll excuse me I'm going to cast chocolate nids.

Yeah and if can send me a few

And so the moral of the story is thus: Go forth and recast, cause if you don't tell everyone it's a recast, use similiar materials, and paint it up nice then more power to you.

I agree. I just get pissed off when people spout about it being legal for personal use. By all means recast, but be aware that it's the same as speeding, it's only illegal if you get caught.

Texas Instrument wrote:If you'll excuse me I'm going to cast chocolate nids.

Rigth behind you ^_^. Just got my casting kit so just need the chocolate now.

Texas Instrument wrote:Guys, here's the thing. Insaniak knows what he's talking about 95% of the time, at least.
Its not the best idea to sass a mod even during the other 5%.

The GW legal team has what you can/cannot do with their models sewn up pretty damn tightly.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=&categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&start=4

Quoting from their legal page,
Photos of Painted Models

We encourage fellow hobbyists to show off their painting skills by taking photos of their miniatures and putting the on the site. Please remember to correctly credit the IP - "miniature © Games Workshop 2003. All rights reserved. Used without permission - model painted by xxxxxxx"

Now, besides the fact that the GW lawyers cannot do basic proofreading ("putting the on the site"), they're explicit in how even pictures of their products may be used. You can only post pictures of models on the GW site, legally. You have to do an AP style works cited for the damn thing, and even say you did it without permission. Basically, they reserve the rights of GOD when it comes to minis. Should they so desire, they could make the entire Painting/modeling section of Dakka go away. They do not pursue this because Dakka IS breaking their rules on it, but do so in a fairly responsible way that does not harm GWs bottom line.

Basically, everyone here has broken GWs IP rules. You're in a forum thread discussing activities described as illegal by GWs legal page. By reading this sentence, you have broken IP law.

So you're already a criminal. Don't flaunt it and you won't be prosecuted for it.

Time for some semantics.

They used the word "encourage". Meaning that they support it, but does not make it mandatory. See the difference in wording when they state that you cannot use their logos: it's "please don't use" and not "we strongly discourage". This may indicate that well, they do not have power over how you post your photos of their product, but they would pretty much would like it if you credit them.

Okay, hold the phone.

What the heck are people talking about Chocolate for in a Casting forum?

Cause you can cast chocolate.

And people do that. Do they eat the models afterwards?

insaniak wrote:

Texas Instrument wrote:Sweet. So there it is. Even though gw says that I cannot recast for personal use, the general fair use laws say I can.

Except the Fair Use clause says nothing of the kind.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
People seem to want to take 'fair use' to mean that anything they do for personal use is ok. But that's not at all what the Fair Use clause does. It just gives guidelines for certain personal usages that are ok.

It's actually almost 100% allowed under fair use. Title 17, section 107 of the big big rule book lists 4 considerations of determining fair use.
Recasting for personal use only is :
1- educational, not for profit.
2- not of the same nature as the copyrighted work. It's in new material, different in every measuable quantity.
3- portion of the copyrighted work used is very small. Gw does not have copyright on each part. Only copyright listed is for the assembled figs. So even though I'm copying 100% of a part, I'm copying maybe 5% of the copyrighted work as a whole.
4- recast without sale has zero impact on the market in most cases. Especially since gw proving that they lost money by me making something I had no intention of buying is a really hard sell.

So how does that not fit fair use guidelines, at least here in the states?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

stardawn wrote:

Time for some semantics.

They used the word "encourage". Meaning that they support it, but does not make it mandatory. See the difference in wording when they state that you cannot use their logos: it's "please don't use" and not "we strongly discourage". This may indicate that well, they do not have power over how you post your photos of their product, but they would pretty much would like it if you credit them.

Further semantics:
They use encourage in the sentence describing that they want you to take pics. The next sentence, which dictates how those are used, does not contain this language. Not pretty much, but explicitly.

Texas Instrument wrote:Recasting for personal use only is :
1- educational, not for profit.

Not selling it doesn't make it educational.

2- not of the same nature as the copyrighted work. It's in new material, different in every measuable quantity.

Casting in a different material doesn't make it 'not of the same nature'... If you're casting a gaming miniature for use as a gaming miniature, it's very much the same nature.

3- portion of the copyrighted work used is very small. Gw does not have copyright on each part. Only copyright listed is for the assembled figs. So even though I'm copying 100% of a part, I'm copying maybe 5% of the copyrighted work as a whole.

That one's down to the lawyers to argue out. But the lawyers I've seen comment on it over the years (those who have been willing to actually comment one way or the other) have pretty exclusively said that it's not enough in itself.

4- recast without sale has zero impact on the market in most cases. Especially since gw proving that they lost money by me making something I had no intention of buying is a really hard sell.

No sale means that it's harder to prove damages. Again, though, not a solid counter in and of itself.

Fair Use is intended to allow for limited copying for educational or backup purposes. Copying a miniatures so that you don't have to buy more does not fit into that intention.

Ultimately though, it's going to come down to lawyers fighting it out, because it's never been tested where miniatures are concerned.

insaniak wrote:

4- recast without sale has zero impact on the market in most cases. Especially since gw proving that they lost money by me making something I had no intention of buying is a really hard sell.

No sale means that it's harder to prove damages. Again, though, not a solid counter in and of itself.

Fair Use is intended to allow for limited copying for educational or backup purposes. Copying a miniatures so that you don't have to buy more does not fit into that intention.

Ultimately though, it's going to come down to lawyers fighting it out, because it's never been tested where miniatures are concerned.

Yeh this one is a tricky one in the US. Thsi is because of a 1942 supreme court ruling (Wickard vs Filburn). Basically the government wanted to know how much it could regulate farmers growing wheat. A law in 1938 said that the government could limit the acreage a farmer could grow of wheat if a surplus was projected (violation would cause the extra wheat to be confiscated of fined). Wickard challenged the law saying that the extra wheat he grew he would use himself therefore not affecting the market. He ultimatley lost the case as the supreme court decided that by him growing extra wheat just so he didnt have to buy it would have a significant effect on the market if enough people adopted th practice.

Texas Instrument wrote:
Further semantics:
They use encourage in the sentence describing that they want you to take pics. The next sentence, which dictates how those are used, does not contain this language. Not pretty much, but explicitly.

I stand corrected.



.....and this is the greatest bullcrap invented by mankind. WHAT THE HELL GAMESWORKSHOP?! I mean, this is bad rep for them: they just called a huge part of their customers criminals.


Can anyone point out if these restrictions are legal in any way, or if it's just GW's word with no binding whatsoever?

I disagree on points one and two actually.
I think you'll agree that a caster new to the craft has a pretty steep learning curve to attack. If the stated goal was to learn how to make a part in a cast, how is that not educational?

Point two you would most likely win, but three and four both lean toward my case. Since all 4 points get considered, it looks like recasting should be allowed under fair use, especially if just for display & painting.


More talk of wheat? To make hotdog buns, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stardawn, yes.
A similar situation: you're making a movie and film my face without permission.
You'd have to pixelate it in the movie because otherwise I could sue for not liking the way you used my image.

How about people taking photos of their iPads, iPods, Mcdonald's fries (with the logo on the container)? Does that count as illegal? You are using their intellectual property.

Depends. Do they have something that says otherwise or are they a company with a vested interest in free advertising?

As the OP of this subject, can I just say thanks to everbody who's contributed so far. It's been informative and entertaining, with some great links. I had no idea the subject would envoke such fury in some of you! For those of you who've joined this a bit later on and don't want to read all seven pages of it I'll try and summarise:

1) Casting mini's (and let's face it whilst I never mentioned GW in my original post they are getting all the stick) is illegal . People who know much more about it than me have said it is so, and I've no reason to doubt them. It doesn't matter if it's for personal use or whatever - you still can't legally do it.

2) Nobody actually seems to care! In fact many posters who have been adamant about the illegality of it, seem quite open about the fact that they recast things themselves! So if you do feel the need to recast stuff (for personal use only of course), nobody is likely to find out as long as you keep it low key. Just don't take your finely recast army into a GW, set up for battle, then boldly announce "Look at my army I recast! It cost me a fraction of the price it would if I'd got them legitimately (legally)" In this instance you will probably be asked to leave immediately and never darken their door again.

3) A few posters have even mentioned about recasting the models in chocolate so opponents can kill and eat at the same time. This gets my full support.

4) IMO, GW or anybody else for that matter are not likely to prosecute if they catch you recasting - unless you're doing it on a huge scale, making loads of money out of it and blatently not for your own personal army - as making an example of a few individuals is probably gonna do more harm to their (let's face it - not great) reputation than good to their bottom line. However - this is just my opinion.

5) I think GW are missing a trick here , they could probably make a lot of money if they produced a bits kit for each army, with all the goodies we would love to see. I again hark back to the good old days when you could order literally anthing. If you just wanted a terminator arm - no problem - need a few extra heavy weapons or the chassis for an ork buggy? - no problems - order as many as you like. Obviously more difficult now as most stuff is plastic and on a sprue, but I'm sure they could make more of this.

Warms my heart monkeyh!
I lurked on dakka a long time before starting to post, and it's very rare to see such a post as yours.
On point five, if you ask, gw will tell you it is because the two part metal molds they use are expensive to make, and producing extras would wear out the molds faster. On this I call shenanigans because of the volume of people doing it in their garage on 50 dollar budgets. Surely there is something amiss with that.

I would like to point out that casting Chocolate requires plastic molds that are food safe. Silicone Rubber molds are NOT food save and can cause illness(to what degree I can't say).

You'd have to look into chocolate mold kits to find the right product to make the minis edible.

I also agree that GW should look into doing Finecast bits sprues(which with how secretive they are may very well be the case). Since they now have the facilities to do resin, Forgeworld is really obsolete save for the fact that they have "unique" models, which GW could easily integrate into their own lines of production.

The day I no longer need to recast because GW offers what people need will be a happy day, but I"m not holding my breath. That and I don't foresee them bringing back my beloved Empire infantry, so I'll still have to do that.

Here is a food safe (FDA approved) mold material that can be reheated to make different molds.
http://www.compositherm.com/cooz.html

Bring on the chocolate bugs already

Hello everyone,

I would like to make a few points in bringing this thread to a close.

1. Recasting, and other types of copyright violation, are against the law in all countries signatory to the Berne Convention.

The following circumstances do not provide a legal loophole

Fair Use/Fair Dealing
OOP models
Small quantities
Home use only

Backing up licensed software is a different circumstance, so is time-shifting TV programmes.

With regards to all the above, no-one is likely to find you out and prosecute you if you do it. So it will usually be a matter between you and your conscience. You should recognise that copyright violation is nearly always immoral and unethical.

However DakkaDakka has a robust attitude to intellectual property. We do not allow the hosting of links to torrents, or advice about recasting. We also do not approve of encouragement of recasting.

We therefore ask all users not to promote recasting or other copyright violations by example or encouragement.