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.

The Demiurg are ok, but the hell is he getting a way with the rest ??

http://velard.hosting.2com.ru/index.html

Cheers

Posted By The Buzz on 03/31/2007 5:46 AM

The Demiurg are ok, but the hell is he getting a way with the rest ??

http://velard.hosting.2com.ru/index.html

Cheers

(for the lazy link takes you to Russian site with copies of various GW designs that even use GW bitz in the sculpts)

Well the answer to your question is 3 characters long - .RU

Russian attitudes towards IP are a bit more ... relaxed than some countries.  There's a site there allofmp3.com that sells music without rights (IIRC).  It's not quite Chinese levels of lawlessness but close. 

Shame really, whomever is doing their sculpts is not half bad, they could be selling their own designs rather than pirating someone else's.

Dear God Emperor... I NEED to know how much that Leman Russ is.

Posted By spacewolflord on 03/31/2007 6:47 AM
Dear God Emperor... I NEED to know how much that Leman Russ is.

$90

 

They sure have GW pricing down.

>> There's a site there allofmp3.com that sells music without rights (IIRC).

Recalled incorrectly. It does operate under the current Russian IP structure and does, according to the site, licence the music for sale from the appropriate Russian governmental bodies. Which is why it stayed in business for as long as it did.

The issue was Russian law, at the time, and is why the US was making such a huge push to change it

The magna pattern leman russ says its 110 usd on my side.

Posted By pixelgeek on 03/31/2007 7:14 AM
>> There's a site there allofmp3.com that sells music without rights (IIRC).

Recalled incorrectly. It does operate under the current Russian IP structure and does, according to the site, licence the music for sale from the appropriate Russian governmental bodies. Which is why it stayed in business for as long as it did.

The issue was Russian law, at the time, and is why the US was making such a huge push to change it

xie xie

I think the issue may also ahve involved whether or not they had the rights to sell the music internationally since publishers price for the market.  But anyway...

Looking at the Greens page, his Robute Guilliman work in progress is pretty nice.

Posted By Kid_Kyoto on 03/31/2007 6:34 AM

Russian attitudes towards IP are a bit more ... relaxed than some countries.  There's a site there allofmp3.com that sells music without rights (IIRC).  It's not quite Chinese levels of lawlessness but close. 

 

Remember the idea of IP rights is a 'fictional' construct, and that different countries have different laws. There isn't really any such thing as a 'right' to IP or even the concept of IP, it depends purely on where you are dealing.  Different nations can class dfferent things as IPable, give them different periods of protection or give the period different start dates. The claimed Unisys patent on the gif algorithm ran out earlier in the UK than it did in the US - it was not lawless or infringing any right to use it freely on the east side of the pond even though it would have been on the west side.  Then you get some companies (e.g. Disney) who like to get their congress poodles to extend their IP protection when it gets close to running out. Generic drugs are legally produced in some places even though the big pharmas still have patents on them, they don't have any legal right to stop those nations doing that - but politics will come into play and something will happen, a mutually acceptable agreement, changed laws, or just bomb the factories (terrorists!).

The (ex)communist countries obviously had and still have different views on ownership of ideas, that doesn't mean anyone is 'right' or wrong.

If you didn't guess I'm not a fan of existing IP laws, especially US/WIPO style.  I'm not against the concept of IP, in fact I think the principle behind modern IP law is basically useful, it's more the existing implementations, and the fact that politics gets to involved due to the way different national laws come into conflict so easily nowadays.

yes but countries then sign treaties to estabilish common standards on IP. And these treaties then cover things like royalties for artists, patents, generic vs patented drugs etc.

Posted By Kid_Kyoto on 03/31/2007 7:18 AM

I think the issue may also ahve involved whether or not they had the rights to sell the music internationally since publishers price for the market.  But anyway...

 

Or look at it another way, who is to say they didn't have the right to sell internationally.  They were in full compliance with their own laws which allowed them to sell internationally.  Why should they not be able to sell - politics pure and simple. 

The music companies couldn't compete under a business plan that required their own national laws, so they ensured political pressure is exerted to change foreign laws. The irony of western nations/compaines who have long espoused free markets and competition not being able to compete with ex communist nation/companies is amusing.  Its one of the things that is rotten with our system, the overly protective IP laws we have protect the companies from their own inefficiencies, Disney being a classic example - they were scared of how they would fare when their copyrights started running out on their older but still popular stuff.  A free market govt with a bit of spine would have simply told them to go take a hike and compete on their own merit rather than surviving on past glories.

Wow.  I like how russian amateurs are putting out better stuff than GW itself.  The Custodes and Custodes Terminators are gorgeous, and that Magna Pattern Russ truly deserves it's armour stats.  Pity about the prices.  Yikes.

Posted By puree on 03/31/2007 7:45 AM

 

Or look at it another way, who is to say they didn't have the right to sell internationally.  They were in full compliance with their own laws which allowed them to sell internationally.  Why should they not be able to sell - politics pure and simple. 

Or look at it another way, they are not in full compliance with their own laws because Russia is violating international agreements it signed.  AND the owners of those songs did not give them permission to copy and sell them. 

Anyway... not the time, not the place.  By my amateur's eye these model volate GW IP in three ways:

Copyright on images - copying GW art (which they did SLAVISHLEY) even with your own work is a violate on copyrights, I can't sell scratchbuilt X wings and Vipers.

Copyrights on scultps - recasting GW bitz into their own model.

Trademark on terms - You cannot sell models called Warhammer 40k products, Adeptus Custodeus or Eldar since those terms are GW's trademarks.  Just like I can't make my own sneakers and call them nike.

Posted By Kid_Kyoto on 03/31/2007 11:33 AM

Posted By puree on 03/31/2007 7:45 AM

 

Or look at it another way, who is to say they didn't have the right to sell internationally.  They were in full compliance with their own laws which allowed them to sell internationally.  Why should they not be able to sell - politics pure and simple. 

Or look at it another way, they are not in full compliance with their own laws because Russia is violating international agreements it signed.  AND the owners of those songs did not give them permission to copy and sell them. 

They were in full compliance of their own laws, at the time russia was to the best of my knowledge not a signatory to any such legaly binding treaty that required anything more than what it was doing.  The site was legal in russia, buying from it was probably legal under US law (it would count as simply an import for private use).

The US ultimatly used Russias desire to join the WTO against it, not any infraction of any treaties it may have signed.

It did not matter in the least whether the 'owners' gave permission or not. The owners desires only matters if the law gives affect to their desires, under russian law their desire had no legal bearing in this case. That was what changed the other year, russia gave authors/performers the rights to restrict internet access, they gave them that right for political reasons (keep US happy for WTO membership) not legal reasons.

Hm, hadn't seen those squats before. The sculpts look rather nice. The Russ, on the other hand, is a bleeding eyesore.

On the other hand $15 for the Russ Primarch is at least half what GW would charge.

Well after seeing these miniatures:

http://www.gamezoneminiatures.com/

I'm quite sure people can get away with a great deal more with GW then I initially thought.  Terrific looking miniatures, blatant copy of some GW ideas.  I like them though!

 

 

 

While I'm no legal expert, and much less an expert on international copyright law, a quick read of the Russian copyright law initially enacted in 1993 shows that this stuff is a clear violation, specifically of Articles 6 and 7 and the law does protect works regardless of the nationality of the authors, as detailed in Article 5.

Here's a quick link to the law if you'd like to read it yourself

http://www.cipr.org/legal_reference/countries/russia/Russia_Copyright_ENG.pdf

The fact is whether it's legal or not isn't the issue. It's illegal to jaywalk in NYC, but I do it a dozen times a day often in front of cops and have yet to be even approached about it. Laws only matter if they're enforced.

Nice stuff though.

For those that don't have excel here's a link to the price list
http://velard.hosting.2com.ru/Price_List.html

Posted By Jay of Moore on 03/31/2007 4:13 PM
While I'm no legal expert, and much less an expert on international copyright law, a quick read of the Russian copyright law initially enacted in 1993 shows that this stuff is a clear violation, specifically of Articles 6 and 7 and the law does protect works regardless of the nationality of the authors, as detailed in Article 5.

Here's a quick link to the law if you'd like to read it yourself

http://www.cipr.org/legal_reference/countries/russia/Russia_Copyright_ENG.pdf

The fact is whether it's legal or not isn't the issue. It's illegal to jaywalk in NYC, but I do it a dozen times a day often in front of cops and have yet to be even approached about it. Laws only matter if they're enforced.

Nice stuff though.

That stuff is the more upto date stuff (as evidenced by the redactions for the later laws). The 2004 act was the bit where they added a lot of  the stuff that the western music industry wanted in - though they delayed enacting the parts the music industry really wanted until last year. Allofmp3 can't now do what they did, but what they did previously was legit.

Article 5 seems to be basic stuff relating to the berne treaty, which basically just says that yes foreign authors have rights - those rights are determined by russian law, and will extend to the shorter of the period of either the russian law or the original nations protection period. All the bearne treaty did was say that a signatory must give other signatories the same rights automatically as it gives its own rights holders.  ie a USA author had the same rights in russia as a russian author, and had that right without having to register the right.  The registration part was a big sticking point with the USA who prior to that required registration, and it was why they didn't join the treaty till 1989 (about 100 years after it was first created).

My understanding of the furore is that prior to 2004 russian law allowed for certain organisations to acquire a 'bulk' license to distribute any and all music and distribute it via the internet, as that was russian law and applied to russian copyright holders it was legal notwithstanding what the music industry thought, in line with the treaty 'when in russia you get russian protections (or lack thereof!)'. 

Those prices don't seem that bad..

Sure the custodes are expensive, but they are pretty damn detailed looking..

$15 for a Leman looks pretty cool.

And that top right space marine monument has a necron head..

Coole some nice minis there Might order some I think, the Custodian Terminator looks great

Posted By AgeOfEgos on 03/31/2007 3:15 PM

Well after seeing these miniatures:

http://www.gamezoneminiatures.com/

I'm quite sure people can get away with a great deal more with GW then I initially thought.  Terrific looking miniatures, blatant copy of some GW ideas.  I like them though!

 

I think I've seen those before, but they gorgeous, if hit or miss.  I'm guessing they skirt EU law close enough that GW can't sue for IP infringement.  With text and words and taglines and stuff it's easier: either it's close or it's not.  with art, you have to balance a lot of factors, including if it's trying to look like the protected art, if it's trying to mimic it, how strong the imagary of the protected work is, etc.

Gamezone's defense would simply be to point out every image of a dwarf, elf, or knight ever produced, and show that they're closer to those than to GW.

Posted By Polonius on 04/01/2007 6:43 AM

Posted By AgeOfEgos on 03/31/2007 3:15 PM

Well after seeing these miniatures:

http://www.gamezoneminiatures.com/

I'm quite sure people can get away with a great deal more with GW then I initially thought.  Terrific looking miniatures, blatant copy of some GW ideas.  I like them though!

 

I think I've seen those before, but they gorgeous, if hit or miss.  I'm guessing they skirt EU law close enough that GW can't sue for IP infringement.  With text and words and taglines and stuff it's easier: either it's close or it's not.  with art, you have to balance a lot of factors, including if it's trying to look like the protected art, if it's trying to mimic it, how strong the imagary of the protected work is, etc.

Gamezone's defense would simply be to point out every image of a dwarf, elf, or knight ever produced, and show that they're closer to those than to GW.

Yeah, I guess it's subjective.  My buddy and I were just shocked when their homepage states "To add diversity"..then they came out with that Fanatic as well .  Just wish they would add to their dwarf line!

Posted By AgeOfEgos on 03/31/2007 3:15 PM

Well after seeing these miniatures:

http://www.gamezoneminiatures.com/

I'm quite sure people can get away with a great deal more with GW then I initially thought.  Terrific looking miniatures, blatant copy of some GW ideas.  I like them though!  

Though it isn't a legal opinion... if the models in question are nicer than the original GW fig's it shouldn't be an infringement....

Can't you just hear the whining.....? "But your Hooooonor.... Their miniatures are better than ours... That's not faaaaaaaair!"

ender502

I need Jetbike warlocks and maybe a jetbike Autarch too. If GW won;t supply why not. I dont have excel, how much are the warlocks, and autarch each please.

I have the worst luck... just today was going to purchase the Autarch on Jetbike and lo and behold - all GW-related figures  are gone.  Looks like the GW lawyers strike even in Russia....

Mezmaron

Man I hate it when other companies make wicked GW figures that GW does not bother to make itself such as primarchs and the just before I get to see them or buy them The GW lawyers just the company down. Maybe if GW spent less money on court cases against small firms they might actally sculpt what we want.