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.

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

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

Not quite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

insaniak wrote:

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

Not quite.

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

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

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

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

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

Which is ultimately what IP law is all about.

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting from their legal page,
Photos of Painted Models

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

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

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

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

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

aerethan wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting from their legal page,
Photos of Painted Models

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

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

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

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

Howard A Treesong wrote:

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

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

Quoting from their legal page,
Photos of Painted Models

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

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

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

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

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

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

That IS the reality.

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

theunicorn wrote:

aerethan wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

That IS the reality.

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

A. Own the model being photographed

B. Own the camera and masters of said photograph

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

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

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

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

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

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

To that end, feth GW and their IP stranglehold.

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

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

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

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

GW's rules do not automatically equal IP Law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Except the Fair Use clause says nothing of the kind.



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