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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Ghidorah

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

These models contain illegally recast GW parts:

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

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

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

Eric

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:



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

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


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

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

augustus5 wrote:

insaniak wrote:



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

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


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

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

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

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

To address the OP:

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

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

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

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

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Yes it would be likely shut down.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its illegal, and I have no morals so there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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


Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

In order... Yes and No.

Eric

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

Most IP lawyers don't have expensive suits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

DODcrazy wrote:End of thread.

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

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

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

My name is Eric, and I approve these posts.

Eric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MagickalMemories wrote:

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

My name is Eric, and I approve these posts.

Eric

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

Now what I want to know is this...

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
What exactly is "slogging"?

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

Thats "Flogging" if you're selling something.

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hmm.

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

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

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