So question of morality, not legality.

In your own opinion, so I think it is more for GW to be against recasting models that are so far OOP they will never be made again even if they are for games that are no longer supported.

This is mainly with games such as epic and BFG.

These items are long oop and range any where from 40 to 100 bucks for a single ship on eBay. Is it morally wrong for GW to say you can't recast those even though they no longer produce them?

Again this is not about the legality of it, this is arguing the morality of saying you can get models we don't make any more.

To make it clear as it seems to be mistaken this is NOT about th legal implication, this is about weather an individual is right or wrong for wanting to buy OOP recasts

ADDITONNALLY, keep in mind this is in regards mainly to BFG, and Epic, games GW abandon years ago with no support at all.

If your have a point regarding legality tied to morality that is fine, but I would rather see that opinion rather then "it's illigal."

Like any question of morality, that is completely determined by you, and nobody else. It is impossible to judge morality for a population, we have laws in place but those dictate the necessities for human beings to get along, not how every human being thinks and feelings.

However, I think it is perfectly okay. GW created it, it is their baby, they put the sweat and tears into the designs (figuratively, it cant be THAT hard) so obviously it stands to reason that they should have full control of what is done with said baby.

Just my $0.02, feel free to disagree!
~Mikey

you can recast it all you want for your own use, you just can't sell it.

As above, if you can't get one by any other means and you don't plan on reselling, go for it.

I don't believe the OP makes sense. Morality is not the issue, legality is. Whether or not you partake in recasting shenanigans or not is up to you. GW has every legal right to defend their property - morality doesn't factor into the equation.

It's a bit like telling a police officer who pulled you over for speeding that you don't believe speeding to be "morally" bad, etc. It's irrelevant.

GW has to oppose recasts. Even if they are OOP and never to be made again by GW. They would eventually lose their rights to this miniature if they don't fight it, and as a company, they have to act legally correct.

That said, I buy OOP recast models without any guilt and don't think it's morally wrong. No one but the second hand market is making money with these OOP models, no designer, sculptor or someone else who created this miniature is taking cuts from second hand market sells. So I just as well might buy a recast.

 Elbows wrote:
I don't believe the OP makes sense. Morality is not the issue, legality is. Whether or not you partake in recasting shenanigans or not is up to you. GW has every legal right to defend their property - morality doesn't factor into the equation.

It's a bit like telling a police officer who pulled you over for speeding that you don't believe speeding to be "morally" bad, etc. It's irrelevant.

Perhaps I should more clearly put it out there.

This is not about legality, no one is questioning the legal implication of it.

This is more directed at discontinued games IE BFG, and epic.

Currently there is no way to official obtain these models with out getting gouged by eBay resellers, which in all likely hood are recast any way.

Is it morally wrong?

GW no longer makes it, no longer support it, and does not give any way to obtain it. Does that mean if the creator of a product decides the no longer want to make or carry a product, or even support it, that it's immoral of fans of the product to want to continue to obtain and use the product? Even if that product is not from the official creator?

To give the legal opinion.

Yes.
They still own the design even if not made and reserve the right to remake said design, modify or rerelease it.

Say cadian karskin.
They might make new models remaster the old model.
They still own it.

Moraly.
Long as your not selling them..

 jhe90 wrote:
To give the legal opinion.

Yes.
They still own the design even if not made and reserve the right to remake said design, modify or rerelease it.

Say cadian karskin.
They might make new models remaster the old model.
They still own it.

I agree form a legal stand point yes, I'll modify the OP as this is geared toward OOP games like epic and BFG

Again not about legality, but morality.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So question of morality, not legality.

In your own opinion, so I think it is more for GW to be against recasting models that are so far OOP they will never be made again even if they are for games that are no longer supported.

This is mainly with games such as epic and BFG.

These items are long oop and range any where from 40 to 100 bucks for a single ship on eBay. Is it morally wrong for GW to say you can't recast those even though they no longer produce them?

Again this is not about the legality of it, this is arguing the morality of saying you can get models we don't make any more.

First I think its faulty to try and distinguish between morality and legality. Morality is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior which has lead to the various laws which are an attempt to codify the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
I know it maybe frustrating to not have ready access to a OOP mini and the temptation to trying any rationalize what is unequivocally considered illegal.

GW owns the design until its copyright expires or they stop defending it. They are morally entitled to compensation for it regardless of its current production status or intent to produce more.

Bottom line is someone is profiting (be it cash or other perceived benefit) from someone else's work with no compensation given to the owner.

Also GW is entitled to determine who and who cannot reproduce their work regardless of intent. So IMHO even if re-casting for yourself, it is still immoral as it is up to GW to determine if you can re-cast their design or not.

To look at it another way, isn't immoral to deny or limit someone else's right?

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

Also GW is entitled to determine who and who cannot reproduce their work regardless of intent. So IMHO even if re-casting for yourself, it is still immoral as it is up to GW to determine if you can re-cast their design or not.

To look at it another way, isn't immoral to deny or limit someone else's right?

actually there are laws allow recasting for yourself and is a very well protected law at that, so if recasting for yourself then no its neither illegal nor immoral.

Asterios wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

Also GW is entitled to determine who and who cannot reproduce their work regardless of intent. So IMHO even if re-casting for yourself, it is still immoral as it is up to GW to determine if you can re-cast their design or not.

To look at it another way, isn't immoral to deny or limit someone else's right?

actually there are laws allow recasting for yourself and is a very well protected law at that, so if recasting for yourself then no its neither illegal nor immoral.

I actually never knew about that, where is that law at?

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

Also GW is entitled to determine who and who cannot reproduce their work regardless of intent. So IMHO even if re-casting for yourself, it is still immoral as it is up to GW to determine if you can re-cast their design or not.

To look at it another way, isn't immoral to deny or limit someone else's right?

actually there are laws allow recasting for yourself and is a very well protected law at that, so if recasting for yourself then no its neither illegal nor immoral.

I actually never knew about that, where is that law at?

its called fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

it would be under non-commercial use.

But does that apply to products based outside of the US

Morality aside, it's the definition of unethical. It's taking an artist's work without compensating them.

Asterios wrote:
its called fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

it would be under non-commercial use.

No it is not. Fair use does NOT apply here, please stop repeating this myth. "Fair use" grants the ability to do specific things with copyrighted material: news reporting, quotes in academic papers, etc. It does not in any way grant the use to copy something because you don't want to buy it legally.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
But does that apply to products based outside of the US

pretty much any copyrighted material anywhere, as it goes if you are doing it for yourself in a non-commercial situation you are legally right, but now say you do some artwork that is copyrighted and put it in a business per se, then it gets sketchy like the preschools in Florida which had painted large Disney characters on their wall was threatened by Disney the case never went to court, but it would have brought to light what is considered fair use or not, it is a very fine line and if it could be proved you are making any form of profit or such from the work then it is illegal.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Morality aside, it's the definition of unethical. It's taking an artist's work without compensating them.

In this context, ie specifically with GW, their artists are salaried, so they get paid whatever.

Asterios wrote:
as it goes if you are doing it for yourself in a non-commercial situation you are legally right

NO. This is not true, at all.

and if it could be proved you are making any form of profit or such from the work then it is illegal.

This is also not true at all.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
GW has to oppose recasts. Even if they are OOP and never to be made again by GW. They would eventually lose their rights to this miniature if they don't fight it, and as a company, they have to act legally correct.

That said, I buy OOP recast models without any guilt and don't think it's morally wrong. No one but the second hand market is making money with these OOP models, no designer, sculptor or someone else who created this miniature is taking cuts from second hand market sells. So I just as well might buy a recast.

As much as I hate the fact that recasting OOP stuff for personal use is still illegal, this guy brings up the main point of the matter. Due to the way copyright law works, GW has to fight EVERYTHING, even if they don't really want to, or else they could lose licensing. So while yes, there may be no issue whatsoever with a player remaking old sculpts for his own use, technically it has to be fought.


I would like to note that GW is doing the best thing possible that is realistic in this case, with the made to order thing they're trying out. They sold out of EVERYTHING they offered on it for the first run, and offered all of it lower than the ebay scalpers did (and more importantly, they released them in metal, not finecast). I think GW found the perfect method to keep people happy with it for the short term. At the very least, even if you miss the window that they make the initial run, adding more stock back into the market will lower prices for the ebay stuff, meaning that models will stay a more reasonable price and you'll stop seeing people charge absolutely stupid amounts for old sculpts.

By doing this, it's about as win/win as you can get, provided the models you wanted are remade and didn't sell out in the preorder I have a feeling though that after GW saw how popular the first made to order run was they'll be better prepared for the next though. It'd be stupid to turn down people who actively want to spend money on your product.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
its called fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

it would be under non-commercial use.

No it is not. Fair use does NOT apply here, please stop repeating this myth. "Fair use" grants the ability to do specific things with copyrighted material: news reporting, quotes in academic papers, etc. It does not in any way grant the use to copy something because you don't want to buy it legally.

Unless the company expressly forbids personal use copies and/or actually if the copyrighted material being copied is being used with the intention of the original it would be allowed, but this is going by copyrighted material if you go into trademarked material then its a whole new set of laws and rights.

but to prove copyright infringement several factors are taken into effect The factors considered when applying the doctrine of fair use include: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the work used, and the effect the use has upon the market for the copyrighted work.

now if we go with an item that has not been done by GW in a long time, making personal copies does not effect GW's market on the items, but like I said it is a very fine line and should not be carte blanche to create whole sprues of current GW product. but if its for old product GW no longer makes and you are not selling it, I really don't think they give a feth about it, hell GW even gives permission to make copies of some of their written material for personal use and such.

Asterios wrote:
Unless the company expressly forbids personal use copies and/or actually if the copyrighted material being copied is being used with the intention of the original it would be allowed

No.

now if we go with an item that has not been done by GW in a long time, making personal copies does not effect GW's market on the items, but like I said it is a very fine line and should not be carte blanche to create whole sprues of current GW product. but if its for old product GW no longer makes and you are not selling it, I really don't think they give a feth about it, hell GW even gives permission to make copies of some of their written material for personal use and such.

And now you're confusing "I think doing this is fair and reasonable" with what "fair use" actually means. The "non-commercial" part is not blanket approval of any non-commercial uses, it's just one factor in determining if something is "fair use". Not all non-commercial uses are ok, and not all commercial uses are prohibited. The fact that copying models so you don't have to buy them is non-commercial* does not change the fact that "I don't want to buy legal copies" pretty blatantly fails the other tests. "Fair use" is intended to allow you to do things like writing an article on OOP GW models and using GW's catalog pictures as examples of what they looked like, even if you make money from writing that article. It is not permission to do anything you want as long as you aren't making money.

*At least in the sense that GW isn't selling the models directly anymore, it still has an impact on the third-party market and sellers of legitimate models.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
Unless the company expressly forbids personal use copies and/or actually if the copyrighted material being copied is being used with the intention of the original it would be allowed

No.

now if we go with an item that has not been done by GW in a long time, making personal copies does not effect GW's market on the items, but like I said it is a very fine line and should not be carte blanche to create whole sprues of current GW product. but if its for old product GW no longer makes and you are not selling it, I really don't think they give a feth about it, hell GW even gives permission to make copies of some of their written material for personal use and such.

And now you're confusing "I think doing this is fair and reasonable" with what "fair use" actually means. The "non-commercial" part is not blanket approval of any non-commercial uses, it's just one factor in determining if something is "fair use". Not all non-commercial uses are ok, and not all commercial uses are prohibited. The fact that copying models so you don't have to buy them is non-commercial* does not change the fact that "I don't want to buy legal copies" pretty blatantly fails the other tests. "Fair use" is intended to allow you to do things like writing an article on OOP GW models and using GW's catalog pictures as examples of what they looked like, even if you make money from writing that article. It is not permission to do anything you want as long as you aren't making money.

*At least in the sense that GW isn't selling the models directly anymore, it still has an impact on the third-party market and sellers of legitimate models.

But does GW, the license holder still make said models? is the recaster selling said recasts whether for profit or not? or even giving them away? say if you need a widget an easy to make widget or say a car part, but the only ones for sale are very pricey but you need the part for your car and can't afford the very high priced part sold thru a secondary seller since the original is long out of production can't you make your own? read carefully cause its a slippery slope you are on now.

Asterios wrote:
But does GW, the license holder still make said models?

That does not matter. Copying copyrighted material because you don't want to pay for a legal copy is not covered by fair use, regardless of whether money is changing hands for the copies.

say if you need a widget an easy to make widget or say a car part, but the only ones for sale are very pricey but you need the part for your car and can't afford the very high priced part sold thru a secondary seller since the original is long out of production can't you make your own?

You could make your own because functional objects with no creative/artistic content are not protected by copyright. However, if you were talking about something that is protected by copyright, "I really want this but I don't want to pay that much for it" is not justification for copyright infringement.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
But does GW, the license holder still make said models?

That does not matter. Copying copyrighted material because you don't want to pay for a legal copy is not covered by fair use, regardless of whether money is changing hands for the copies.

say if you need a widget an easy to make widget or say a car part, but the only ones for sale are very pricey but you need the part for your car and can't afford the very high priced part sold thru a secondary seller since the original is long out of production can't you make your own?

You could make your own because functional objects with no creative/artistic content are not protected by copyright. However, if you were talking about something that is protected by copyright, "I really want this but I don't want to pay that much for it" is not justification for copyright infringement.

More or less this is not an argument of, I don't wanna pay GW prices so I'll go to a recasters, it's a I want a GW product that GW abandon and the only sources of it would be recast or 2nd hand eBay at massive prices. At that point it's a matter of who's getting the money, it's no to int to be GW

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
But does GW, the license holder still make said models?

That does not matter. Copying copyrighted material because you don't want to pay for a legal copy is not covered by fair use, regardless of whether money is changing hands for the copies.

say if you need a widget an easy to make widget or say a car part, but the only ones for sale are very pricey but you need the part for your car and can't afford the very high priced part sold thru a secondary seller since the original is long out of production can't you make your own?

You could make your own because functional objects with no creative/artistic content are not protected by copyright. However, if you were talking about something that is protected by copyright, "I really want this but I don't want to pay that much for it" is not justification for copyright infringement.

so does GW have said item for sale? what if you needed a fender for say a '57 Chevy? or a grill for a '57 Chevy?

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
its called fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

it would be under non-commercial use.

No it is not. Fair use does NOT apply here, please stop repeating this myth. "Fair use" grants the ability to do specific things with copyrighted material: news reporting, quotes in academic papers, etc. It does not in any way grant the use to copy something because you don't want to buy it legally.

QFT. Re-casting a miniature is not fair use as defined under US copyright law regardless of quantity. If nothing else it fails fair use based on the fact that you are copying the entire work.

Asterios wrote:
Unless the company expressly forbids personal use copies……

This is backwards. An individual or company does not have to expressly forbid personal use copies. In fact, they have to expressly permit copies for personal use for you to legally copy which is why….

Asterios wrote:
…..GW even gives permission to make copies of some of their written material for personal use and such.

So GW has to explicitly post or print somewhere that you have permission to copy or recast, not the other way around. Thats part of the reason for putting marks on things, and no you can't argue that if you don't see a copyright mark, it must mean it's not copyrighted.

Asterios wrote:
but to prove copyright infringement several factors are taken into effect The factors considered when applying the doctrine of fair use include: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the work used, and the effect the use has upon the market for the copyrighted work.

If your basis for doing something is on the probability of how likely you are to be caught, sued, or prosecuted or how much you think it does or does not cost an individual or company, i.e. how bad is it on some personal sliding scale of right or wrong, than whether something is immoral is already irrelevant to you.

There is a reason there is a legitimate second hand market for these things (as well as other goods no longer in production, e.g. classic cars, MTG cards, various other mass produced items no longer in production).

Again, I get that its frustrating that a miniature you want is no longer widely available or costs more than you are willing or able to pay. Regardless it does not give someone the moral right to copy that work without permission or compensation to the owner.

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
But does GW, the license holder still make said models?

That does not matter. Copying copyrighted material because you don't want to pay for a legal copy is not covered by fair use, regardless of whether money is changing hands for the copies.

say if you need a widget an easy to make widget or say a car part, but the only ones for sale are very pricey but you need the part for your car and can't afford the very high priced part sold thru a secondary seller since the original is long out of production can't you make your own?

You could make your own because functional objects with no creative/artistic content are not protected by copyright. However, if you were talking about something that is protected by copyright, "I really want this but I don't want to pay that much for it" is not justification for copyright infringement.

so does GW have said item for sale? what if you needed a fender for say a '57 Chevy? or a grill for a '57 Chevy?

Before you can make that argument, it may be a case of Chevy allowed it to be created freely or it reached a point of open domain.

This is a case of, let's say you need the hood to a '57 Chevy, but Chevy refuses to make the hood or let anyone else make a Design that fits it

Asterios wrote:
but to prove copyright infringement several factors are taken into effect The factors considered when applying the doctrine of fair use include: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the work used, and the effect the use has upon the market for the copyrighted work.

When the purpose is merely to save money, because "buying genuine items is too expensive", most courts will take a dim view of that.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
its called fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

it would be under non-commercial use.

No it is not. Fair use does NOT apply here, please stop repeating this myth. "Fair use" grants the ability to do specific things with copyrighted material: news reporting, quotes in academic papers, etc. It does not in any way grant the use to copy something because you don't want to buy it legally.

QFT. Re-casting a miniature is not fair use as defined under US copyright law regardless of quantity. If nothing else it fails fair use based on the fact that you are copying the entire work.

Asterios wrote:
Unless the company expressly forbids personal use copies……

This is backwards. An individual or company does not have to expressly forbid personal use copies. In fact, they have to expressly permit copies for personal use for you to legally copy which is why….

Asterios wrote:
…..GW even gives permission to make copies of some of their written material for personal use and such.

So GW has to explicitly post or print somewhere that you have permission to copy or recast, not the other way around. Thats part of the reason for putting marks on things, and no you can't argue that if you don't see a copyright mark, it must mean it's not copyrighted.

Asterios wrote:
but to prove copyright infringement several factors are taken into effect The factors considered when applying the doctrine of fair use include: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the work used, and the effect the use has upon the market for the copyrighted work.

If your basis for doing something is on the probability of how likely you are to be caught, sued, or prosecuted or how much you think it does or does not cost an individual or company, i.e. how bad is it on some personal sliding scale of right or wrong, than whether something is immoral is already irrelevant to you.

There is a reason there is a legitimate second hand market for these things (as well as other goods no longer in production, e.g. classic cars, MTG cards, various other mass produced items no longer in production).

Again, I get that its frustrating that a miniature you want is no longer widely available or costs more than you are willing or able to pay. Regardless it does not give someone the moral right to copy that work without permission or compensation to the owner.

problem is there are secondary recasted parts for cars for sale, so that point is moot, as to me I don't recast if I feel the need for something that is not available on the open market i make my own copy, since recasts make for poor castings when its comes to old GW stuff. but if you look at things like CD's and DVD's you can make your own personal copies, you cannot distribute them, nor sell them or anything but if you have the original you can make a copy for yourself.

what it comes down to is this though, does GW still make the item? if no it will not take money away from them, will you be making money from said item? if no then not a problem, now exact recasting would be an issue, but it would not be solely judged on that, what it comes down to is, will GW get in a twist over it, if you make copies for yourself and don't go blabbing about it, doubt GW will find out or be concerned, but if you go making recasts then showing them off and blabbing how you recasted said items then yeah GW might take notice.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Asterios wrote:
but to prove copyright infringement several factors are taken into effect The factors considered when applying the doctrine of fair use include: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the work used, and the effect the use has upon the market for the copyrighted work.

When the purpose is merely to save money, because "buying genuine items is too expensive", most courts will take a dim view of that.

if the company still sells the product which is why I do not advocate the recasting or anything of current product.

I don't oppose recasting because I don't care for GW as a company. For me they are a big bad faceless corporation where the bottom line is all that matters and customer appreciation is not in their agenda. Their price gouging is criminal.

Also GW is not a person - so the way I see it recasting or buying from a recaster isn't screwing over a guy who worked hard and was creative.

Bill the creative guy that was an artist or went to school for design and then got a job a GW - probably gets paid an average wage - or conceivably a below average wage because it's a niche company - so he's doing it for the love of the job.
Bill probably doesn't have stock options and his career growth potential is probably limited.
Bill probably also works in a team and maybe a gem stone or sword arm idea of his gets added to a model.
Bill contributes what he can. The project manager / creative manager get the final say.
At the end of the day...Bill doesn't own what he creates. Sh*!tty GW does.

So morally...I'd feel bad if recasting meant I was stealing from Bill. But Recasting is stealing from GW. Who steal from everyone with their insane pricing.

It's Dutch door action.

This doesn't have much to do with recasting. This is just a question about you being a latent anarchist or not ; )




Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is a social rule / law not to do it.
But you will have something to gain by ignoring the rule and no one will get seriously hurt when you ignore it. So what do you do ?

It is the same sort of question as would ignore the red light if the road is empty ?
Or is it ok to download music from dead artist ?

What's morality got to do with it?

It's a legal issue, purely and simply - and a civil one at that, not a criminal one.

(copyright violation is a breach of civil law here, not criminal law).

 chromedog wrote:
What's morality got to do with it?

Everything
Ignoring laws. and claiming rights certainly are morality / cultural issues. It is an interesting topic, but it can't really be discussed to its full on this forum. Since only the law abiding arguments are allowed by the forum rules.

I'm a little shocked at the complete lack of legal understanding several posters here are displaying. Copying a produced and copyrighted item is not legal, full-stop. It does not, in any way fall under "Fair Use" clauses.

The argument that something is out-of-print or too expensive is utterly worthless in a legal context. The argument that "oh, boo-hoo their toys are too expensive" is even worse. I say this as someone who's got very little love for Games Workshop. They're toy soldiers. You don't like the cost? Play something else.

It's one thing to say you disagree with the cost of models that they produce (I do, almost completely) but it's a whole other level to say "well they're too pricey...so I'll steal/break the law".

If you personally don't like GW's methods/costs/discontinuation policies...go third party or just go buy cheap eBay copies if you think that's legitimate. There are loads of 3rd parties with "notX" models.

It amused me that one example given was:

"Say cadian kasrkin.
They might make new models remaster the old model.
They still own it."

This week, you CAN buy new original kasrkin figures from GW. Why would GW NOT oppose recasting? And who, this week, can justifiably say "yeah, recasting kasrkin is morally fine"?

stroller wrote:
It amused me that one example given was:

"Say cadian kasrkin.
They might make new models remaster the old model.
They still own it."

This week, you CAN buy new original kasrkin figures from GW. Why would GW NOT oppose recasting? And who, this week, can justifiably say "yeah, recasting kasrkin is morally fine"?

If it was unavailable for purchase... And not sold. For purely a personal one off run off a few models at the most.
In a very narrow circumstances. Legal still wrong. Morals. Id not be calling you a pirate...

I forgot about the new made to order system.

Fair use 100% does not cover recasting for 'personal reasons,' at all, and recasting is a violation of copyright and, often, trademark.
Morally... eh, there are far greater things for me to get upset about than someone recasting out of print models and I can't imagine the day that would come where I'd find myself morally outraged by it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, there are tons of things that are 100% legal that are absolutely unethical and (as defined by the prevailing culture) immoral and tons of things that are illegal that 100% ethical and moral.

 Elbows wrote:
I'm a little shocked at the complete lack of legal understanding several posters here are displaying. Copying a produced and copyrighted item is not legal, full-stop. It does not, in any way fall under "Fair Use" clauses.

The argument that something is out-of-print or too expensive is utterly worthless in a legal context. The argument that "oh, boo-hoo their toys are too expensive" is even worse. I say this as someone who's got very little love for Games Workshop. They're toy soldiers. You don't like the cost? Play something else.

It's one thing to say you disagree with the cost of models that they produce (I do, almost completely) but it's a whole other level to say "well they're too pricey...so I'll steal/break the law".

If you personally don't like GW's methods/costs/discontinuation policies...go third party or just go buy cheap eBay copies if you think that's legitimate. There are loads of 3rd parties with "notX" models.

problem is if we are talking about a model that is over 14 years old, got news for you then it is no longer protected, my point is copyrights and patents and design are not the end all of what not, in fact if the patent is not renewed every 2 years or one year depending on type it is null and void, so I repeat i stand by my assumption. but then you get into the muddled world of what is considered art over design, while in the UK it is easier to copyright a 2D object then it is to copyright a 3D object, now while a work of literature, art and such copyrights like that can last 70-95 years or so depending on how they were created and such, but then we get into designs and using molds and mass producing then the copyright is not so strong or long lasting.

now as to GW designs i'm thinking more the latter then the former which is why they are trademarked and copyrighted every year it seems, which means GW has to pay a fee to renew the copyright, which I do not see GW doing with now defunct molds.

but if you have any questions instead of asking us the OP should have asked GW and maybe, just maybe GW would give an honest answer to the question too.

Naaris wrote:
Their price gouging is criminal.

No it is not. In fact it isn't even price gouging at all. This is nothing more than entitled justification for why you don't want to pay for something the honest way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
problem is if we are talking about a model that is over 14 years old, got news for you then it is no longer protected

Absolutely wrong. Please at least read the wikipedia article on copyright law before trying to discuss it.

Asterios wrote:
problem is if we are talking about a model that is over 14 years old, got news for you then it is no longer protected,

Where are you getting that 14 year thing? Can you source that?

From what I see, GW's "sculptural works" would have a 70 / 95-year protection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Duration_of_copyright

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
problem is if we are talking about a model that is over 14 years old, got news for you then it is no longer protected

Absolutely wrong. Please at least read the wikipedia article on copyright law before trying to discuss it.

actually I go by the intellectual property rights relevant for the toy industry instead.

a brief blurb from a stormtrooper case:

Importantly, in applying these factors, Mann J. addressed whether toys of Stormtroopers were sculptures. The matter was important because Lucasfilrn had authorised the making and sale of such toys. Consequently, the duration of its copyright in the designs on which the toys were based was effectively limited under section 52 of the C.D.P.A. to 15 years unless the toys were regarded themselves as "sculptures": C.D.P.A., Sched 1, para. 20; section 10 Copyright Act 1956. The judge concluded that they were not. He stated, [2009] FSR (2), 154-155, [123]: "Next, it is necessary to consider the toy Stormtroopers, and other characters, which are taken as being reproductions of the armour and helmets for the purposes of section 52. These are, as already described, articulated models which are sold as toys and which are intended for the purposes of play. Play is their primary, if not sale, purpose. While their appearance is obviously highly important (if they did not look like the original, the child would not be so interested) they are not made for the purposes of their visual appearance as such. While there is no accounting for taste, it is highly unlikely that they would be placed on display and periodically admired as such. The child is intended to use them in a (literally) hands-on way, in a form of delegated role play, and that is doubtless how they are actually used. That means, in my view, they are not sculptures. They can be distinguished from the model in Britain which apparently had a significant element of being admirable for its own visual salce. That does not apply to the Stormtrooper, whose only IS Case: 1:10-cv-08103 Document #: 208-19 Filed: 08/14/12 Page 64 of 134 PageID #:3988real purpose is play. In reaching this conclusion I am not saying that the Britain model is better at what it portrays than the Stormtrooper model. That would be to make judgments about artistic quality, which the statute understandably forbids. It is making a judgment about whether there is anything in the model which has an artistic essence, in the sense identified above. I conclude that there is not."

Asterios wrote:
actually I go by the intellectual property rights relevant for the toy industry instead.

GW's model designs are protected by copyright. There is no special "toy industry copyright" that has different terms.

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
problem is if we are talking about a model that is over 14 years old, got news for you then it is no longer protected

Absolutely wrong. Please at least read the wikipedia article on copyright law before trying to discuss it.

actually I go by the intellectual property rights relevant for the toy industry instead.

And you're still entirely wrong about it.

I refer you to the famous Stormtrooper case..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12910683

Specifically..

If Lucasfilm could convince the courts the 3D works were sculptures, they would be protected by copyright for the life of the author plus 70 years.
If not, the copyright protection would be reduced to 15 years from the date they were marketed, meaning it would have expired and Mr Ainsworth would be free to sell them.

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
problem is if we are talking about a model that is over 14 years old, got news for you then it is no longer protected

Absolutely wrong. Please at least read the wikipedia article on copyright law before trying to discuss it.

actually I go by the intellectual property rights relevant for the toy industry instead.

a brief blurb from a stormtrooper case:

Importantly, in applying these factors, Mann J. addressed whether toys of Stormtroopers were sculptures. The matter was important because Lucasfilrn had authorised the making and sale of such toys. Consequently, the duration of its copyright in the designs on which the toys were based was effectively limited under section 52 of the C.D.P.A.

That case is irrelevant, as CDPA section 52 was repealed on 28 July, 2016. This harmonized copyright for toys with other sculptures.

Section 52 of the CDPA currently contains an exception which limits copyright protection for certain artistic works when they have been industrially manufactured. This means that when more than 50 copies of these artistic works are made, then the current period of protection is limited to 25 years, compared to other artistic works which are protected by copyright for the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. The Government has decided to bring industrially manufactured items into line with other artistic works so that all types of artistic works will have copyright protection for the life of the creator plus 70 years, rather than the 25 years it would have had under section 52 CDPA.

http://www.hgf.com/updates/news/2016/05/repeal-of-section-52-of-the-copyright-designs-and-patents-act-1988/

Don't reference obsolete law.

Not obsolete in the U.K.

Scratch that, but then it was very recent.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
actually I go by the intellectual property rights relevant for the toy industry instead.

GW's model designs are protected by copyright. There is no special "toy industry copyright" that has different terms.

guess again, here is a nice little article dealing with GW and its items:

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

A patent is entirely different from both a copyright and a trademark and you're still just showing that you DEEPLY don't understand the first thing about IP law.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Not obsolete in the U.K.

Dude, I just gave a link showing that it was obsolete.

From 29 July 2016, no new copies of affected artistic works may be made or imported unless:
* The works were contracted before the publication of the consultation document at 16.30 on 28 October 2015
* The rights holder has granted permission
* An exception to copyright applies under the CDPA 1988

From 28 January 2017, no works created in reliance on s.52 should be dealt with. By this date, unless the work falls within an exception to copyright under the CDPA 1988, the works must be:
* Sold or destroyed
* Authorised by the rights holder

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2016/04/s52-repeal-comes-into-force-july-28-2016.html

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

First I think its faulty to try and distinguish between morality and legality. Morality is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior which has lead to the various laws which are an attempt to codify the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

You're right, we should always assume legal is the same as moral. Otherwise we might have to free those slaves or allow those loving men to marry each other, and where would we be if that happened!!

Asterios wrote:
guess again, here is a nice little article dealing with GW and its items:

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

Please read your own article.

What 3-D printing hobbyists mostly have to watch out for, Weinberg argues, is copying artistic patterns or designs on an object. That violates copyright.

The argument with 3d printing is not that you can create an exact duplicate of a GW model, it's that you can create your own model with a similar style. In fact, 3d printing is completely irrelevant here, as the same law applies to sculpting and selling models through traditional casting methods. The only reason anyone is talking about it in the context of 3d printing is that 3d printing makes it a lot easier to make copies if you aren't one of the few people who already has a lot of experience with casting.

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
GW's model designs are protected by copyright. There is no special "toy industry copyright" that has different terms.

guess again, here is a nice little article dealing with GW and its items:

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

Nope. Check the actual law that is in effect.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
GW's model designs are protected by copyright. There is no special "toy industry copyright" that has different terms.

guess again, here is a nice little article dealing with GW and its items:

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

Nope. Check the actual law that is in effect.

well that was the law 3 years ago and have yet to hear a change to that law here in the US, have you? and where?

@Peregrine yes you are right about the art part but that can be fixed with a little putty and art part removed.

Just to stop the psuedo-lawyering on here, IP law is a civil matter so nothing regarding it is "illegal" and short of running a recast factory a laughably small possible legal issue.

If you want to recast some OOP model for your personal use go for it.

Asterios wrote:
well that was the law 3 years ago and have yet to hear a change to that law here in the US, have you? and where?

You haven't heard a change to the law in the US because this was a UK law, US copyright law never had the shorter length for "toys". The article on the stormtrooper case explains this, including the fact that the guy lost in US court.

@Peregrine yes you are right about the art part but that can be fixed with a little putty and art part removed.

Uh, what?

Asterios wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
GW's model designs are protected by copyright. There is no special "toy industry copyright" that has different terms.

guess again, here is a nice little article dealing with GW and its items:

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

Nope. Check the actual law that is in effect.

well that was the law 3 years ago and have yet to hear a change to that law here in the US, have you? and where?

Let's be very clear that the obsolete law that you cited only applies to the UK, not the US. UK law is no harmonized with US law.

In the US, there was no reduction in the first place (because that would have cut into Mickey Mouse toy sales), and so it's always been minimum 25 years, now 70+ years.

As for the advice to copy to your hearts content?

The legal penalties for copyright infringement are: Infringer pays the actual dollar amount of damages and profits. The law provides a range from $200 to $150,000 for each work infringed. Infringer pays for all attorneys fees and court costs.

https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/penalties.html

$150k + GW Legal fees buys a fethton of OOP stuff on eBay. And don't think GW wouldn't take pleasure in destroying you in court. They're still smarting over the Chapterhouse fiasco. Recasting is a cut-and-dry win for them.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
GW's model designs are protected by copyright. There is no special "toy industry copyright" that has different terms.

guess again, here is a nice little article dealing with GW and its items:

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

Nope. Check the actual law that is in effect.

well that was the law 3 years ago and have yet to hear a change to that law here in the US, have you? and where?

Let's be very clear that the obsolete law that you cited only applies to the UK, not the US. UK law is no harmonized with US law.

In the US, there was no reduction in the first place (because that would have cut into Mickey Mouse toy sales), and so it's always been minimum 25 years, now 70+ years.

As for the advice to copy to your hearts content?

The legal penalties for copyright infringement are: Infringer pays the actual dollar amount of damages and profits. The law provides a range from $200 to $150,000 for each work infringed. Infringer pays for all attorneys fees and court costs.

https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/penalties.html

$150k + GW Legal fees buys a fethton of OOP stuff on eBay. And don't think GW wouldn't take pleasure in destroying you in court. They're still smarting over the Chapterhouse fiasco. Recasting is a cut-and-dry win for them.

actually the link I posted that you quoted me from is from an article where a US lawyer on such things spoke about it. also how does one pay damages on product no longer released or produced? provided it is a copyright and not a patent?

I don't care where you posted it from.

As for damages, ask the RIAA - statutory damages are a thing, separate from actual damages.

And it is definitely copyright of an artwork, not a patent of an invention.

Really, your posts here display gross ignorance of IP law. You should stop. Or, if you're so sure, then you should do it, post proof, and see what GW does about it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't care where you posted it from.

As for damages, ask the RIAA - statutory damages are a thing, separate from actual damages.

And it is definitely copyright of an artwork, not a patent of an invention.

Really, your posts here display gross ignorance of IP law. You should stop. Or, if you're so sure, then you should do it, post proof, and see what GW does about it.

and until you come up with a new law passed in the US in the past 3 years i will go by what the lawyer says, do you have a law degree in such IP infringement?

Wow, I did not expect you to double down on the stupidity of going with obsolete law from a lawyer who's talking outside his jurisdiction.

As for whether I have a law degree, the mistakes you are making are so obvious and egregious, I don't need one to know that you're wrong.

Anyhow, I'm done with you and your trolling.

Asterios wrote:
and until you come up with a new law passed in the US in the past 3 years i will go by what the lawyer says, do you have a law degree in such IP infringement?

...

You do understand that there would be no reason for a new law in the US, right? The shorter copyright duration for certain things was a UK law, no such difference in duration existed in US law. Arguing "the UK made a new law, so show me the new US law" is just nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as I already pointed out, even your own article on 3d printing has an IP lawyer saying "making exact copies would violate copyright" and only defending making new models in the same style as GW's designs.

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
Unless the company expressly forbids personal use copies and/or actually if the copyrighted material being copied is being used with the intention of the original it would be allowed

No.

now if we go with an item that has not been done by GW in a long time, making personal copies does not effect GW's market on the items, but like I said it is a very fine line and should not be carte blanche to create whole sprues of current GW product. but if its for old product GW no longer makes and you are not selling it, I really don't think they give a feth about it, hell GW even gives permission to make copies of some of their written material for personal use and such.

And now you're confusing "I think doing this is fair and reasonable" with what "fair use" actually means. The "non-commercial" part is not blanket approval of any non-commercial uses, it's just one factor in determining if something is "fair use". Not all non-commercial uses are ok, and not all commercial uses are prohibited. The fact that copying models so you don't have to buy them is non-commercial* does not change the fact that "I don't want to buy legal copies" pretty blatantly fails the other tests. "Fair use" is intended to allow you to do things like writing an article on OOP GW models and using GW's catalog pictures as examples of what they looked like, even if you make money from writing that article. It is not permission to do anything you want as long as you aren't making money.

*At least in the sense that GW isn't selling the models directly anymore, it still has an impact on the third-party market and sellers of legitimate models.

But does GW, the license holder still make said models? is the recaster selling said recasts whether for profit or not? or even giving them away? say if you need a widget an easy to make widget or say a car part, but the only ones for sale are very pricey but you need the part for your car and can't afford the very high priced part sold thru a secondary seller since the original is long out of production can't you make your own? read carefully cause its a slippery slope you are on now.

In legal terms, no, you cannot make your own copy of that part. Its design and implementation are the legal intellectual property of a third party. Of course, no one is going to know if you went ahead and created this part for your own use, but that is a totally separate thing from the legality of the action.

That said, the specifics of the laws pertaining to this are going to vary by country. The morality of the action is going to vary by individuals.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
and until you come up with a new law passed in the US in the past 3 years i will go by what the lawyer says, do you have a law degree in such IP infringement?

...

You do understand that there would be no reason for a new law in the US, right? The shorter copyright duration for certain things was a UK law, no such difference in duration existed in US law. Arguing "the UK made a new law, so show me the new US law" is just nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as I already pointed out, even your own article on 3d printing has an IP lawyer saying "making exact copies would violate copyright" and only defending making new models in the same style as GW's designs.

no the article said using exact artwork would violate the IP could still make a space marine, but without the icons, but then that brings up another question what about people who draw the icons on their pieces? is that a violation of IP?

 Psienesis wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
Unless the company expressly forbids personal use copies and/or actually if the copyrighted material being copied is being used with the intention of the original it would be allowed

No.

now if we go with an item that has not been done by GW in a long time, making personal copies does not effect GW's market on the items, but like I said it is a very fine line and should not be carte blanche to create whole sprues of current GW product. but if its for old product GW no longer makes and you are not selling it, I really don't think they give a feth about it, hell GW even gives permission to make copies of some of their written material for personal use and such.

And now you're confusing "I think doing this is fair and reasonable" with what "fair use" actually means. The "non-commercial" part is not blanket approval of any non-commercial uses, it's just one factor in determining if something is "fair use". Not all non-commercial uses are ok, and not all commercial uses are prohibited. The fact that copying models so you don't have to buy them is non-commercial* does not change the fact that "I don't want to buy legal copies" pretty blatantly fails the other tests. "Fair use" is intended to allow you to do things like writing an article on OOP GW models and using GW's catalog pictures as examples of what they looked like, even if you make money from writing that article. It is not permission to do anything you want as long as you aren't making money.

*At least in the sense that GW isn't selling the models directly anymore, it still has an impact on the third-party market and sellers of legitimate models.

But does GW, the license holder still make said models? is the recaster selling said recasts whether for profit or not? or even giving them away? say if you need a widget an easy to make widget or say a car part, but the only ones for sale are very pricey but you need the part for your car and can't afford the very high priced part sold thru a secondary seller since the original is long out of production can't you make your own? read carefully cause its a slippery slope you are on now.

In legal terms, no, you cannot make your own copy of that part. Its design and implementation are the legal intellectual property of a third party. Of course, no one is going to know if you went ahead and created this part for your own use, but that is a totally separate thing from the legality of the action.

That said, the specifics of the laws pertaining to this are going to vary by country. The morality of the action is going to vary by individuals.

actually you can make that part patent laws are very limited and much shorter in term then Copyrights and such, it is why I can make my old '80's G.I.Joe stuff with relative ease and not break the law, their patents are expired, now I can't use any of their logos or maybe even names but the vehicle designs I can.

never mind, it's not even worth it.

Asterios wrote:
no the article said using exact artwork would violate the IP could still make a space marine, but without the icons, but then that brings up another question what about people who draw the icons on their pieces? is that a violation of IP?

These questions are why "IP lawyer" is a profession. There is a gray area where a new design is not an exact copy/paste of an existing thing but clearly uses very similar design elements and is intended to be a copy, and the only way to find out for sure is to get the lawyers involved. Alternatively you can just avoid trying to make the closest possible copy of someone else's IP and do your own thing.

actually you can make that part patent laws are very limited and much shorter in term then Copyrights and such, it is why I can make my old '80's G.I.Joe stuff with relative ease and not break the law, their patents are expired, now I can't use any of their logos or maybe even names but the vehicle designs I can.

...

No. Seriously, you need to do some basic research on how IP law works. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are all very different things. Those old toy designs would be protected by copyright, and their names/logos/etc would be protected by trademarks. Patents do not apply because they protect functional devices, not artistic elements like the design of a toy. And the hypothetical car part is likely protected by none of the above, because it has no artistic elements to be copyrighted and probably isn't innovative enough to qualify for a patent. These are very basic mistakes you're making here.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
no the article said using exact artwork would violate the IP could still make a space marine, but without the icons, but then that brings up another question what about people who draw the icons on their pieces? is that a violation of IP?

These questions are why "IP lawyer" is a profession. There is a gray area where a new design is not an exact copy/paste of an existing thing but clearly uses very similar design elements and is intended to be a copy, and the only way to find out for sure is to get the lawyers involved. Alternatively you can just avoid trying to make the closest possible copy of someone else's IP and do your own thing.

actually you can make that part patent laws are very limited and much shorter in term then Copyrights and such, it is why I can make my old '80's G.I.Joe stuff with relative ease and not break the law, their patents are expired, now I can't use any of their logos or maybe even names but the vehicle designs I can.

...

No. Seriously, you need to do some basic research on how IP law works. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are all very different things. Those old toy designs would be protected by copyright, and their names/logos/etc would be protected by trademarks. Patents do not apply because they protect functional devices, not artistic elements like the design of a toy. And the hypothetical car part is likely protected by none of the above, because it has no artistic elements to be copyrighted and probably isn't innovative enough to qualify for a patent. These are very basic mistakes you're making here.

actually a Patent is the design, the logos on said design are trademarks while the names are copyrights, but the actual toy design itself is just a patent, now any unique icons on it could be trademarked and copyrighted but not the vehicle design since that is the patent. or technically a Design Patent. as opposed to a Utility Patent which you are describing.

Morality? Ha!

Games Workshop made the miniatures, copyrighted them, and can sell whatever they want. They spent money on sculpting, production, etc. It makes total sense to produce and sell something you invested funds into. They could bring anything back if they wanted. They were production miniatures after all. None of the minis brought back were convention exclusives or limited edition miniatures, so not sure why there would be any complaints....

The only folks upset are those who bought to resell at rip off rates (like metal characters being sold for $30-$80). Those folks deserve to have gw spite them by helping the gaming community, making desirable minis affordable and accessable again.

As for collectors, everyone knows gw stuff doesn't go up in value per say. You collect and paint and army, if you sell later you will most likely lose money or break even.

Folks will think twice before they hoard minis to resell now. GW can make these production runs at anytime in the future, and making to order costs them nothing (no risk). Great job gw thinking about the community and shoving it up scalpers rears

I could not be bothered to read the other responses because when I start seeing the same two people dominating the thread, there's probably a heated debate going on that I don't wanna be dragged into.

THAT SAID. I voted it's not immoral (as in it's ok) however this is a personal opinion. Do not see it as immoral because it's not going to steal sales from the parent company; the majority of players would be after those models for their aesthetics and parts, not because they would be cheaper (and in most cases they are not cheaper. Anyone who've tried to hunt down the old metal Wraithguard will know what I mean). If the Company decides to start producing these models again, then I would see it as immoral if they didn't stop.

Basically I feel that for a hobby like ours, the parts should always be made accessible for conversions and displays. For a hobbyist, not having access to those parts is the true immorality.

Legal-wise, again, recasts should only exist until the parent company responds, then they should politely step down when that happens.

If it's immoral, it's because it would somehow offend against justice. There would be a failure to give to each according to his due. There would have to be some way in which GW is being violated.

Does that hold? I don't know.

It's pure economics if you don't provide a product at a price people find reasonable they'll go elsewhere.

Recasters wouldn't have a business if GW had more reasonable prices in the first place.

I'm not going to look down on someone that buys a model at half price when I view the full price as being insane.

Do I think it's immoral to recast an 20 year old toy soldier in my basement for my own use?

Of course not, that's absurd.

hobojebus wrote:
It's pure economics if you don't provide a product at a price people find reasonable they'll go elsewhere.

Recasters wouldn't have a business if GW had more reasonable prices in the first place.

I'm not going to look down on someone that buys a model at half price when I view the full price as being insane.

True.
I know the recaster prices. The Start Collecting! boxes (and other heavily discounted boxes) for example are just not worth it buying as recasts. Sure, they are cheaper, but the difference is not enough to deal with the cons of resin vs plastic.

But a full set of the OOP Juan Diaz' daemonettes for ~11 USD vs ~80 USD (or more) from Ebay? Well...

I'm impressed how people fail to separate morality from legality. Morality is a bigger issue than legality when it comes to recasting for personal use because realistically GW are incapable of policing it. The law is only relevant in so much as it's enforceable.

Morally speaking, I have no issue with recasting OOP models. Selling those recasts as if they were the real thing, morally that's wrong, but I think as long as it's clear, I don't have a problem with it morally speaking.

Models that aren't OOP I think it's morally wrong to support recasters over buying from the source. Recasters don't have the overheads that the original company has and by supporting the recasters you aren't supporting someone who is contributing to the good of the hobby. I think it shows selfishness more than anything. Even if the sculptors are salaried, where do you think the money for their salaries comes from? Even if you think GW are burning money and don't want to support it, that doesn't magically morally grant you the right recast and sell it.

But OOP stuff, the longer a company decides to not support a product they've released I think the less moral right they have to try and exert control over it.

But that aside, the poll is poorly worded.

The thread title is:

"Does GW morally have the right to say no to OOP recast?"

I think GW aren't immoral if they say no to OOP recasts. But then the poll title says...

"Buying recast OOP Models"

So if I vote "Yes", am I voting "Yes, it's immoral for GW to so no to recasters" or is it "Yes, it's immoral to recast".

I don't think GW are immoral if they go after recasters, but I think in general the penalties for copyright infringement are absurd and the penalties in some cases may be immoral.

I think GW has a moral obligation to protect the investments of their shareholders, and that includes fighting IP violations/taking legal action against those who infringe on their IP.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm impressed how people fail to separate morality from legality. Morality is a bigger issue than legality when it comes to recasting for personal use because realistically GW are incapable of policing it. The law is only relevant in so much as it's enforceable.

Morally speaking, I have no issue with recasting OOP models. Selling those recasts as if they were the real thing, morally that's wrong, but I think as long as it's clear, I don't have a problem with it morally speaking.

Models that aren't OOP I think it's morally wrong to support recasters over buying from the source. Recasters don't have the overheads that the original company has and by supporting the recasters you aren't supporting someone who is contributing to the good of the hobby. I think it shows selfishness more than anything. Even if the sculptors are salaried, where do you think the money for their salaries comes from? Even if you think GW are burning money and don't want to support it, that doesn't magically morally grant you the right recast and sell it.

But OOP stuff, the longer a company decides to not support a product they've released I think the less moral right they have to try and exert control over it.

But that aside, the poll is poorly worded.

The thread title is:

"Does GW morally have the right to say no to OOP recast?"

I think GW aren't immoral if they say no to OOP recasts. But then the poll title says...

"Buying recast OOP Models"

So if I vote "Yes", am I voting "Yes, it's immoral for GW to so no to recasters" or is it "Yes, it's immoral to recast".

I don't think GW are immoral if they go after recasters, but I think in general the penalties for copyright infringement are absurd and the penalties in some cases may be immoral.

I suppose it was a bad wording, but it was sorta a weird thing to broach.

I am still impressed at the ratio of people who are saying yay or nay to this.

GW has a legal right NOT to sell things. A lot of IP gets bought up to bury it in favor of other IP that gets sold with less competition and more protection. GW is absolutely right to demand people not recast and either pay the going market rate, or else do without.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW has a legal right NOT to sell things.

I don't disagree, but I think when they stop selling something they start to lose the morale high ground when it comes to dictating what gamers do with their models. This thread is about the morality of it, not the legality.

That said I don't necessarily think GW is bad for going after recasters who sell stuff for profit, but I also don't think it's immoral for gamers to try and obtain OOP models from alternative sources or recast the models themselves for personal use.

Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

The real point is if someone is recasting for their own use and tell no one, then who would find out? now if someone is recasting for sales then someone will find out, me I have no problem with people recasting for their own use, but recasting to sell I do have an issue with since they are using someone else's idea to profit.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

While that its a valid point, that is not the goal of this thread,

We are asking specifically on OOP models, things like EPIC or BFG which GW abandon years ago, and has had no indication of bringing it back.

Is it immoral to buy those models from recasters, if GW is doing as it is now, showing no interest what so ever in recasting things like BFG.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

While that its a valid point, that is not the goal of this thread,

We are asking specifically on OOP models, things like EPIC or BFG which GW abandon years ago, and has had no indication of bringing it back.

Is it immoral to buy those models from recasters, if GW is doing as it is now, showing no interest what so ever in recasting things like BFG.

So you're really asking "Is recasting for profit immoral?"

Because if it is, and you buy from/support that activity, you are supporting/encouraging immoral behavior.

My personal answer is Yes, it is immoral to steal/profit from GW's IP, regardless if they are currently selling the item or not. Others will have a different opinion. Hopefully GW sues them into bankruptcy if they act on that opinion.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

While that its a valid point, that is not the goal of this thread,

We are asking specifically on OOP models, things like EPIC or BFG which GW abandon years ago, and has had no indication of bringing it back.

Is it immoral to buy those models from recasters, if GW is doing as it is now, showing no interest what so ever in recasting things like BFG.

the problem is the question may have already been answered, there is a seller who is selling old BFG ships thru Shapeways, GW knows of this and have known for awhile (in fact even one of the designers of the game knows even) and yet the seller is still selling them.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

While that its a valid point, that is not the goal of this thread,

We are asking specifically on OOP models, things like EPIC or BFG which GW abandon years ago, and has had no indication of bringing it back.

What makes you think that they are abandoned, given that GW continues to license BFG. It's not like they didn't just bring back Blood Bowl, for which there was nothing going on there. And it's not like the new kits like the 40k IKTs and other FW items aren't based on GW's Epic IP.

It's definitely tied to this thread.

It all really boils down to: you are making a copy of someone else's work.
My painted picture, my poem, my thesis, my sculpture, my program, my recipe what would give you the right to copying my hard work for sale or your own use?
Make your own item or buy that particular item from that person.
It only makes sense if you actually want to have what someone made, paying them for it could ensure they make more stuff you like.

Shapeways for me is becoming the moral minefield far more than recasting.
The 3d model is an actual "new" work that can be altered but it may be based visually on someone else's intellectual property.
IP lawyers must drink an awful lot.

 Talizvar wrote:
It all really boils down to: you are making a copy of someone else's work.
My painted picture, my poem, my thesis, my sculpture, my program, my recipe what would give you the right to copying my hard work for sale or your own use?
Make your own item or buy that particular item from that person.
It only makes sense if you actually want to have what someone made, paying them for it could ensure they make more stuff you like.

Shapeways for me is becoming the moral minefield far more than recasting.
The 3d model is an actual "new" work that can be altered but it may be based visually on someone else's intellectual property.
IP lawyers must drink an awful lot.

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did? have you ever made a mix tape? or recorded a show on TV before? or even painted a GW icon symbol on one of your models? or shared a story someone did? and the list goes on and on, yet according to copyright laws those are violations of it. its a very fine line between what is accepted and not.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

We are asking specifically on OOP models, things like EPIC or BFG which GW abandon years ago, and has had no indication of bringing it back.

Is it immoral to buy those models from recasters, if GW is doing as it is now, showing no interest what so ever in recasting things like BFG

You do realise that both of those are coming back right?

But to answer your question - yes, I have a problem with helping someone make money from direct copying of someone else's IP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?

Huge difference between using a recipe and selling that recipe.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?

Huge difference between using a recipe and selling that recipe.

yes but the original question is not about selling but using for your own use.

Legally, they have the right to stop recasting.

Personally, I believe the entire process of copyright is a morally abhorant manifestation of greed and should be done away with.

Asterios wrote:
Problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?

The important matter is that in order for us to progress as a society we need to build on someone else's ideas in order to innovate.
Some means of initial profit and credit need to be given.
Typically I get my recipe out of a cookbook I have purchased or ones published on cooking sites that claim they are for free use.
Usually I modify them after being used a few times (innovation) usually written in that purchased book or on the website printout and publishing my changes in the comments for that recipe (to give credit and others to benefit).
No harm no foul so I believe.

have you ever made a mix tape?

Yep, typically from my own purchased collection.
I think the question you were reaching for here is "and then gave it to someone?".

or recorded a show on TV before?

I believe this is a standard feature on most cable or satellite systems so fail to see an issue here.

or even painted a GW icon symbol on one of your models?

On a GW model?
There would be few models I would want to out of context.
Plus many of their "icon symbols" had been borrowed from many historical sources.
How is this an issue when I am given slide transfers of the same said symbols.

or shared a story someone did?

Shared how?
Loaned my book to them?
Libraries have set a precedent.

and the list goes on and on, yet according to copyright laws those are violations of it. its a very fine line between what is accepted and not.

I agree on the fine line statement.
I would take existing GW model components and modify some parts and sculpt features on them (In this case for 1000 sons before the CSM bits came out for them).
I then cast those sculpted/modified parts for ease of building up my army.
I then swapped the parts I made with CSM models.
Somewhere there was a violation of copyright.
GW was not making those models yet.
I was still using 1 for 1 purchased models so their income did not take a hit.
I feel I had done "the right thing" while I am sure someone out there would be happy to say how wrong I am.

 Talizvar wrote:

Asterios wrote:
have you ever made a mix tape?

Yep, typically from my own purchased collection.
I think the question you were reaching for here is "and then gave it to someone?".

or recorded a show on TV before?

I believe this is a standard feature on most cable or satellite systems so fail to see an issue here.

that may be the case now, but is it legal? its like when VCR's were made the NFL made a big stink about people taping their games and such.

The question is, what if you bought a model that is no longer made but wanted more of that model so recasted the already paid for model for your own personal use? what do you think of that morally? certain things it is illegal to do, but is it a case of no harm, no foul? its not like you are taking money from GW since they no longer make the model, and its not like you are selling your recasts. something like this I have no problem with, what about you?

Asterios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?

Huge difference between using a recipe and selling that recipe.

yes but the original question is not about selling but using for your own use.

No, the original question is about buying recast models from someone that is making money from them. Recasting them for yourself is different to helping someone make money from stolen IP.

To use your mix tape example - creating a mix tape from music that you've bought is not the same as buying a mix tape of pirated music.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

Commercial recasters are overseas in countries that don't care about copyright laws so you can't really do a hell of a lot about it other than get their websites closed down.

Going after home recasters who just do it for personal use I think would be an exercise in both futility and stupidity. If people aren't selling the models then policing it is pretty much impossible.

Going after damages I think is immoral because the idea that 1 person is responsible for every dollar that the models could have been sold for is fething insane and illogical. In the context of wargaming models recasted for personal use it's going to be even more difficult because the monetary value probably isn't going to be high anyway.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

Yeah I don't think most people care about recasts in the context of "maybe in 20 years time GW will release a made to order system!"

If GW immediately moved old product to a made to order system I might agree with you. They didn't. They killed the products and then ignored them for years upon years. People get left with incomplete armies they might have spent hundreds of dollars on and I don't see it as immoral for them to want to finish off those forces with recasts when GW aren't producing them anymore and show no sign of producing them.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?

Huge difference between using a recipe and selling that recipe.

yes but the original question is not about selling but using for your own use.

No, the original question is about buying recast models from someone that is making money from them. Recasting them for yourself is different to helping someone make money from stolen IP.

To use your mix tape example - creating a mix tape from music that you've bought is not the same as buying a mix tape of pirated music.

but what if you made a mix tape of music off of the radio? this was rather common practice

and yes you were right about the original question but my question is about the morality of recasting for your own personal use?

Asterios wrote:

and yes you were right about the original question but my question is about the morality of recasting for your own personal use?

I think it's difficult to say that it's wrong to recast for your own use something that the creator refuses to sell - in that scenario they haven't lost anything and you haven't profited (beyond getting further enjoyment from their creation).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

Commercial recasters are overseas in countries that don't care about copyright laws so you can't really do a hell of a lot about it other than get their websites closed down.

Going after home recasters who just do it for personal use I think would be an exercise in both futility and stupidity. If people aren't selling the models then policing it is pretty much impossible.

Going after damages I think is immoral because the idea that 1 person is responsible for every dollar that the models could have been sold for is fething insane and illogical. In the context of wargaming models recasted for personal use it's going to be even more difficult because the monetary value probably isn't going to be high anyway.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

Yeah I don't think most people care about recasts in the context of "maybe in 20 years time GW will release a made to order system!"

If GW immediately moved old product to a made to order system I might agree with you. They didn't. They killed the products and then ignored them for years upon years. People get left with incomplete armies they might have spent hundreds of dollars on and I don't see it as immoral for them to want to finish off those forces with recasts when GW aren't producing them anymore and show no sign of producing them.

Going after damages for home users makes an example of someone, preventing others from risking the same penalties. That's exactly why statutory damages exist in place of actual damages. See RIAA for examples.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

and yes you were right about the original question but my question is about the morality of recasting for your own personal use?

I think it's difficult to say that it's wrong to recast for your own use something that the creator refuses to sell - in that scenario they haven't lost anything and you haven't profited (beyond getting further enjoyment from their creation).

that is the problem, if you copy their icons and such its illegal, but the point is is anyone getting hurt? the company is not losing money and the recaster gets to complete his army since the company no longer makes said product.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Going after damages for home users makes an example of someone, preventing others from risking the same penalties. That's exactly why statutory damages exist in place of actual damages. See RIAA for examples.

mostly those have been thru file sharers and such, the problem is people do not realize when they file share they are also sending out the file while downloading it themselves, so yes company's can track them and will go after them.

Asterios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?

Huge difference between using a recipe and selling that recipe.

yes but the original question is not about selling but using for your own use.

No, the original question is about buying recast models from someone that is making money from them. Recasting them for yourself is different to helping someone make money from stolen IP.

To use your mix tape example - creating a mix tape from music that you've bought is not the same as buying a mix tape of pirated music.

but what if you made a mix tape of music off of the radio? this was rather common practice

and yes you were right about the original question but my question is about the morality of recasting for your own personal use?

It is illegal to copy from radio or TV that is why since maybe 10 years or more there is a sub-charge on empty media (in the Netherlands) because of copying.

IMHO there is nothing wrong with recasting an oop or parts of current models for your own use. Officially it is illegal.

With GW's prices i have gone the proxy route and second hand route (game companies really hate the second hand market)

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?

Huge difference between using a recipe and selling that recipe.

yes but the original question is not about selling but using for your own use.

No, the original question is about buying recast models from someone that is making money from them. Recasting them for yourself is different to helping someone make money from stolen IP.

To use your mix tape example - creating a mix tape from music that you've bought is not the same as buying a mix tape of pirated music.

Most people probably recast from legally bought miniatures (Initially at least), just like people do mix tapes with legally bought music.

I'm pretty sure under EU law you can recast things if you don't distribute/sell things

Pretty sure EU law is harmonized with US law, so you can't.

Asterios wrote:
The question is, what if you bought a model that is no longer made but wanted more of that model so recasted the already paid for model for your own personal use? what do you think of that morally? certain things it is illegal to do, but is it a case of no harm, no foul? its not like you are taking money from GW since they no longer make the model, and its not like you are selling your recasts. something like this I have no problem with, what about you?

Fair enough question.
In a perfect world I would contact the creator and ask if they plan on running that product again.
If no, I would ask for permission to copy the model I have for personal use.
Unfortunately with GW there would be no good way in asking them.
Personally I don't really want to copy anything of theirs anyway.

For them to morally say no to OOP recast? I would say they probably have to since many items have artistic elements of their IP and they need to defend it.

Never normally post on these things, far too scary, however...it makes me laugh that the OP asked a perfectly viable question, but it degrades to what was expressly put as NOT the point.

It is fairly obvious that WikilawyersRus have as much legal nous as me (read none) but I understand that it is illegal to copy anything made by GW, the same that it is illegal to copy a Music CD or a DVD movie. The fact that most of the time this is not chased up by the relevant company is a blessing to us all.

Morally, this is a very grey area, and a good question. As an avid scratch builder I often copy closely other peoples ideas, I would never dream of taking cash for an accurate copy of someone elses work, be it GW or just a fellow Dakkite. In the same way I would have no issue with someone copying my work (be flattered more than likely) but if they copy it and sell it as their own that's wrong, morally. Nothing illegal about it.

So I have no moral issue with you copying an OOP no longer supported model, for your personal use. But I do have an issue morally with anyone making money from it.

As several have pointed out, GW have to take the stance of never copy OUR work. Where else can you draw the line. After all next year they might start selling BFG or Epic. Those designs are theirs.

On a purely moral/ethical point, GW started out years ago asking you to go and copy their designs, make your own, here's the concept, go play. They have changed over the years, but so has society. Dakka has given a brilliant game of its own. How would anyone here feel if someone started pumping out recasts of ME. I personally would be outraged, but that is today's world. I do not understand peoples hatred for GW, they have given me so much fun in my life, and though I find the prices difficult, I do not really see a problem. I pay if I want to for a piece of entertainment that (some of my models that even today I repaint) will last me a ridiculous amount of time. Of course they have every right to OWN that ART. But once bought I have every right to do what I want with it, but copy it and make profit from that is simply wrong.

An interesting slip to the side would be, is it morally wrong to profit from GW design, as in, I paint the model and sell it for 5 times its original worth, but in reality its there design that I am selling? And before I get trolled on this, no one would pay for anything I painted.

And finally, we (maybe not all of us) live in a society where somethings value is determined by what people are willing to pay for it. If the secondhand market prices are steep it is simply supply and demand, rare popular items are expensive, unwanted readily available are cheap, that is the way of the world. I dare say you could have an army a million strong of Gretchin with autoguns for the price of a small titan right now.

I now await the inevitable trolling ....

 Camkierhi wrote:
On a purely moral/ethical point, GW started out years ago asking you to go and copy their designs, make your own, here's the concept, go play.

Pretty sure that is NOT true in the slighest. GW shared templates and plans, and showed how to make things. That is a like publishing a blueprint or a recipe (both copyrightable), for the express purpose for others to use. Giving permission to copy a template or use a plan, is not the same as giving carte balance to copy other things.

It's like saying that allowing someone into your home for a birthday party gives them irrevocable occupancy and tenancy rights.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


It's like saying that allowing someone into your home for a birthday party gives them irrevocable occupancy and tenancy rights.

It doesn't? Man. No wonder my landlord is always so pissed off.

Guess what I was trying to say was, that imo the whole game system was more flexible, my idea of the game has always been more open to interpretation and over the years GW has gotten more rigid. Admittedly I was thinking about the baneblade when I commented. Designs given freely in white dwarf. But then GW had no model being produced for it. Now if you took those plans today and started producing models for sale from it. GW would shout. And I would agree with them to a degree.

As to your reference to birthday party guests, that's how I got my wife!

I get were you are coming from. My point was more about how attitude changes over time. I would wholeheartedly agree that just because they used to give out plans it does not give carte blanche to start mass production in your basement.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Going after damages for home users makes an example of someone, preventing others from risking the same penalties. That's exactly why statutory damages exist in place of actual damages. See RIAA for examples.

I know what it does and I find it completely immoral. In the case of online copyright infringement they hand down penalties which are completely fething insane because 1. The idea that pirating Y number of items that have an RRP of $X dollars means the company has lost $X*Y is stupid and 2. The idea that it's fair punishment to bankrupt a person for it is stupid, we don't even ask murderers to pay back what the expected wages for rest of the life of the person they killed might have been. 3. They then use those landmark cases as extortion to get people to settle out of cases they can't afford to be involved in. 4. It doesn't stop piracy or more importantly doesn't increase sales anyway.

When it comes to home recasting it'd be even more stupid IMO. Sure, go after actual companies that do it and resell, though you're not going to get damages out of someone recasting in Russia or China, hopefully you can take down the websites.

Going after people recasting at home would be fruitless, potentially expensive, suicidal as far as public opinion goes and IMO in many cases downright immoral.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Pretty sure EU law is harmonized with US law, so you can't.

Copyright law isn't harmonized within the EU let alone with the US. In particular the DMCA contains a load of ridiculous stuff that has no equivalent.

There is little harmonization of law between the US and EU.

If the question is about making money from recasts from dead/OOP games/miniatures, then I can see situations where I dont see any moral problems with it.

For example, when GW trashed Epic Armageddon it rose up a community of recasters and sculptors that provided miniatures to the Epic community, both old GW miniatures and new miniatures that never had gotten a official GW mini. This kept the community and the game alive and helped inspire new fan-made supplements for the game.

If anything I would call GW immoral when they started coming down on these casters, like a child trying to keep others from playing with THEIR toy, even though they dont play with it anymore.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Pretty sure EU law is harmonized with US law, so you can't.

It's already been shown in this thread that US and UK (an EU member for now) law aren't harmonised...

Morally, I view that something is right as long as it does no harm.
Recasting an OOP miniature (whether it is subsequently sold or not) doesn't harm anyone, even if it is not legally permitted. Quite the contrary, it makes people happy because they can now get something they want but otherwise would not be able to get. And GW doesn't lose any profits. Therefore I think that recasting OOP miniatures isn't just 'not wrong', but that it is fact a morally commendable thing to do.
GW certainly does not have the moral right to say no as long as they do not make the miniature.
Imo, copyright law as it currently stands in many places is a perfect example of how something that started out with a noble goal has been perverted into something evil and opressive that serves the interests of capital rather than those of society.

Is it morally wrong? Probably. GW is still in business, so if you believe in private and intellectual property, they should maintain control over it. Just because nobody gets hurt doesn't make an action morally correct. It is against the wishes of the rightful owner. You are recasting somebody else's work for your personal gain/pleasure. If you really want to claim morality, make your own sculpts.

I believe this argument changes if the original owner no longer has any interest in the property, as in the case of Abandonware software for old computer systems, or truly defunct gaming companies.

Further, the more recasts that people make, the higher the chances of them intentionally or accidentally entering the secondary market. This is a big problem with Battletech miniatures, as people are trying to pawn off recasts of valuable "unseen" (legally OOP) miniatures. People are buying the poor quality knock offs, and it depresses the market for legitimate owners. If you resell an army that includes recasts, the moral thing to do is smash all non-original product with a hammer before you put it up for sale. Is that going to happen every time?

I don't have a problem with personal-use recasts as long as it remains that. It's convenient, likely victimless, and in many cases legal, but let's not try to say it's "moral".

It's not morally wrong, it's just dumb financially.

People IN game stores buy stuff at the store out of laziness and "ooooo shiny I want that".

People rejected from game stores do not.

nareik wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Pretty sure EU law is harmonized with US law, so you can't.

It's already been shown in this thread that US and UK (an EU member for now) law aren't harmonised...

Actually, the example of UK law was outdated, and I showed very clearly that UK law is currently in step with US law.

That said, if some idiot wants to bet his house, savings, and future salary on obsolete UK law as precedent in the US, I've got loads of popcorn for watching the inevitable result.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

nareik wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Pretty sure EU law is harmonized with US law, so you can't.

It's already been shown in this thread that US and UK (an EU member for now) law aren't harmonised...

Actually, the example of UK law was outdated, and I showed very clearly that UK law is currently in step with US law.

That said, if some idiot wants to bet his house, savings, and future salary on obsolete UK law as precedent in the US, I've got loads of popcorn for watching the inevitable result.

Ah my mistake then. Apologies.

I would wonder how much trouble GW would be if certain designs of theirs were brought to the attention of other IP holders. For example, many of the tyranid designs and 20th Century Fox...

 Stormonu wrote:
I would wonder how much trouble GW would be if certain designs of theirs were brought to the attention of other IP holders. For example, many of the tyranid designs and 20th Century Fox...

I'm thinking more of the Terminator and Necrons.

 Stormonu wrote:
I would wonder how much trouble GW would be if certain designs of theirs were brought to the attention of other IP holders. For example, many of the tyranid designs and 20th Century Fox...

Absolutely none. Playmates / Exo-Squad already established similarity is not infringement.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

nareik wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Pretty sure EU law is harmonized with US law, so you can't.

It's already been shown in this thread that US and UK (an EU member for now) law aren't harmonised...

Actually, the example of UK law was outdated, and I showed very clearly that UK law is currently in step with US law.

That said, if some idiot wants to bet his house, savings, and future salary on obsolete UK law as precedent in the US, I've got loads of popcorn for watching the inevitable result.

UK and US law were in agreement on that specific point but there is no harmonization of copyright law between the UK and US. Also, you claimed that EU copyright law was harmonized with US law which is ridiculous when there is no such thing as EU copyright law - it's not even close to being harmonized within the EU let alone with any other country.

OK, if that's the case, show me where in the EU the law permits individuals to ignore copyright for the purpose of making personal copies not for sale/distribution.

Because, what I see at a high level suggests that that is not the case. Further, I see EU law moving toward US law with greatly expanded copyright protection and lengthened copyright term following the US Mickey Mouse trail.

For your example, please use current law, not stuff that's obsolete. The fact that the UK exception was obsoleted is direct evidence of harmonization, BTW...

Do they have a MORAL right to say no to OOP recasting?

They (GW) aren't a person, it is a company. Morality is irrelevant to them.
Morality is a set of HUMAN socio-religious rules to allow the greater part of human society to function. Mostly through fear of something. A good man does good because it is the right thing to do, not for an eternal reward that may or may not ever eventuate.

IP law isn't concerned with morality either, just legal technicalities (although it can be said that the entire practise of law - in its civil/criminal aspects - is all about the technicalities anyway).

They DO, however, have a LEGAL requirement to do so and MUST do so at the risk of forfeiture of said rights (protect your IP or lose it) if they don't.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
OK, if that's the case, show me where in the EU the law permits individuals to ignore copyright for the purpose of making personal copies not for sale/distribution.

Because, what I see at a high level suggests that that is not the case. Further, I see EU law moving toward US law with greatly expanded copyright protection and lengthened copyright term following the US Mickey Mouse trail.

For your example, please use current law, not stuff that's obsolete. The fact that the UK exception was obsoleted is direct evidence of harmonization, BTW...

The two being co-incidentally in agreement in a particular point is not harmonization - harmonization would be a deliberate process to synchronize the two. The overturning of the 2014 personal use copyright act (which referred specifically to recordings of performances) was done on it's own merits - not to make it more similar to EU or US law.

You also keep referring to "EU law" but there is no consensus on copyright law across the EU - it is actually one of the areas which has the least harmonization.

No, it wasn't mere coincidence that the UK extended their copyright terms to match US terms across the board. That is a counterfactual there.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, it wasn't mere coincidence that the UK extended their copyright terms to match US terms across the board. That is a counterfactual there.

So what is the standard that the UK, US, etc. are harmonizing with?

There is a harmonization process in place for electrical safety regulations, for example, and a standard exists against which the subscribing countries are harmonizing.

There is no such harmonization standard for copyright.

That would be the US standard, which Disney bought and paid for.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That would be the US standard, which Disney bought and paid for.

There is no "US standard", just current US law. No standard, no harmonization.

Of course copyright law is similar across major western countries - this tends to be case for things that affect international trade.

This is not nearly the same as harmonization which is something that has a very specific meaning.

When other countries adopt US copyright norms, the US law *is* the standard.

Also, the EU itself states that it is harmonising the law.

Economic rights which enable rightholders to control the use of their works and other protected material and be remunerated for their use. They normally take the form of exclusive rights, notably to authorise or prohibit the making and distribution of copies as well as communication to the public. Economic rights and their terms of protection are harmonised at EU level.

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/copyright

As someone who's actually gone back through Hansard and read the drafting of multiple original laws around intellectual property protection in the 19th century, the arguments in Parliament for and against it, and several subsequent iterations/modifications within it, I'm fully aware that it hasn't always been considered a black and white moral issue.

Strictly speaking also, as I posted several months ago, in legal terms, certain GW models are actually technically legal to recast in the UK through a legal loophole until it closes in 2020.

More generally speaking, I believe in the moral primacy of intellectual property protection within certain limits. That limit being predicated upon the parties and time limit involved. I think intellectual property should expire at a certain point, and dislike the constant extension of the law at the behest of certain mouse eared franchises. I also have little sympathy for companies which submit claims in court for owning the concepts of things like 'grenade launchers' or 'halberds'.

So my answer on GW? It depends. I'd consider the recasting of anything they currently or have recently sold as immoral. But that consideration is tempered by the fact GW are a massive gang of IP thieves and liars themselves, and one rarely feels concern for a burglar who has their own house burgled. It doesn't necessarily make the act of the second burglar moral, but the poetic justice involved certainly makes you care less.

Asterios wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
But does that apply to products based outside of the US

pretty much any copyrighted material anywhere, as it goes if you are doing it for yourself in a non-commercial situation you are legally right, but now say you do some artwork that is copyrighted and put it in a business per se, then it gets sketchy like the preschools in Florida which had painted large Disney characters on their wall was threatened by Disney the case never went to court, but it would have brought to light what is considered fair use or not, it is a very fine line and if it could be proved you are making any form of profit or such from the work then it is illegal.

As GW Is a UK company it would be under the gambit of Fair Dealing, rather than Fair Use. And it definitely isn't Fair Dealing to copy for your own use. The only categories in Fair Dealing are: "Research and Study", "Criticism or Review", "Parody, Caricature and Pastiche" and "Reporting of Current Events". Copying something for your own use is none of those, so if sued in a UK court you couldn't use Fair Dealing as a defence and a US defence would not be applicable.

Thread is being locked due to thread necromancy.