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.

After some of the other recasting threads got locked or threadjacked (guilty of it myself before, not judging), I came up witha question. I have a conversion that I want to do to a model. I do my conversion to the bit in question, and then look upon my army. Lo! I need 10 more of these things to get it looking the way I want. At what point is making molds of this component legit, if ever? Not looking for commentary along the lines of "so few parts will never really hurt GW", or anyhting like that. Legit, or not. Period.

I am on the fence about it simply because this is not a case of just making copies of parts. You have changed this component. I guess that makes it a derivative work? Also, GW has demonstrated techniques for part copies in WHite Dwarf (the one that comes to mind was copying the rear vents on a land raider kit), so it would seem that they have some kind approval for doing such things, at some level. At what point have you put enough work into said bit to make it "ok"? IS there such a point?

I think I would vote no, myself. On the one hand I am sure GW would rahter me buy all the parts from them and make the conversion 11 times (yeesh), but on the other GW is hardly morally driven; rather they are profit margin driven as any good corp should be.

WHat does dakka think?

I'm of the opinion that if it's for your own use, as it clearly is in this example, you can do what you like.

You did it, its for personal use, go for it.

Recast as much of whatever you want. Who cares? From GW's perspective, t's the same as buying used models and scratch building stuff.

I agree, it's your own work-it's ok,

When making a conversion the point at which the result stops being a derivative work and becomes a new original work can often only be decided in a court of law.

I'm not saying you will be sued about it, since GW will never know.

Kilkrazy wrote:
I'm not saying you will be sued about it, since GW will never know.

Unless they read Dakka, in which case you're screwed

Now Jervis knows and will hunt you down with his legion of real chaos space marines O_O Don't worry though, they are all less than 1" tall and are badly painted.

There is no line, feel free to do what you want with what you have - screw what online haters have to say. Seriously only run into GW elitism online but then again my city only has indies and there isn't an official GW store in a few hundred miles; resulting in GW propaganda having next to zero pull around these parts.

Making molds/casting has been a hobby longer than GW/Citadel has been around and is a great skill to have although from what I've seen you're going to have to spend a good deal of time and money learning. A starter kit alone costs about $50 and thats only enough for just one or two molds and castings.

Kilkrazy wrote:When making a conversion the point at which the result stops being a derivative work and becomes a new original work can often only be decided in a court of law.

Same here.
The line for derivative works is very difficult to set, so if you made/sculpted the whole mini from parts and gs go for it.

M.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quite a few GW´s IP have started as derivatives either from common folklore or other SciFi Works.

Cane said it totally with how I feel.
Specially since it seems like you want to use it on a personal level. Go for it man, make you stuff and be proud of what you do. I saw a thread awhile ago on a titan build someone was doing on here. It turned out REALLY awesome. Anyways, he was using GW pieces and COD terrain and all kinds of GW do dads. He cast all the parts after building them for uniformity and EVERYONE on here thought it was just the bees knees. Funny how thats ok to these people, but not with a small mini. Hmmmmm weird?

Cracker, you make a valid point. Prehaps price point has more to do with perception than anything else in these matters.

I'm not too worried about being sued; in the end I don't sell models (have regretted it every time I ever got rid of a model) at all anyway, and these are just for personal use.

Interesting takes on this concept. Thanks for the input, dakka. Anyone else seeing this thread, feel free to continue contributing, I'll be checking back.

Quit PMing me about casts. You know who you are. I ain't even GOT the stuff; it's mental exercise for the moment.

If you're just casting some accesories to add onto to GW figs, they'd be seriously slowed to object.

Afterall, you're still using GW figs.

Go nuts!

Depends on the effort and bitz involved.

I once made a sweet conversion using some left overs from stuff I hacked up. If I wish to do it again I would consider casting it up instead as the chances of me getting the odds and sods right again are minimal!

I say that since GW discontinued their bits service, they're encouraging you to make copies of stuff for conversion.

As long as you're not selling it in mass quantities I don't think there is any problem with it.

grizgrin wrote:After some of the other recasting threads got locked or threadjacked (guilty of it myself before, not judging), I came up witha question. I have a conversion that I want to do to a model. I do my conversion to the bit in question, and then look upon my army. Lo! I need 10 more of these things to get it looking the way I want. At what point is making molds of this component legit, if ever? Not looking for commentary along the lines of "so few parts will never really hurt GW", or anyhting like that. Legit, or not. Period.

I am on the fence about it simply because this is not a case of just making copies of parts. You have changed this component. I guess that makes it a derivative work? Also, GW has demonstrated techniques for part copies in WHite Dwarf (the one that comes to mind was copying the rear vents on a land raider kit), so it would seem that they have some kind approval for doing such things, at some level. At what point have you put enough work into said bit to make it "ok"? IS there such a point?

I think I would vote no, myself. On the one hand I am sure GW would rahter me buy all the parts from them and make the conversion 11 times (yeesh), but on the other GW is hardly morally driven; rather they are profit margin driven as any good corp should be.

WHat does dakka think?

What do you mean by "legit?"

If the question is "is it legal," the answer is "insufficient data." There are some scenarios where you may be starting with so small a part of GW's IP, or have changed it so drastically by conversion, that you have an original work. There are other scenarioswhere your modifications have only created a deriviative work. There is not, however, a particularly useful "bright line" test. There are some things which would be obviously insufficient ("Look, I added extra nipples to my daemonettes!"), and some which would be obviously sufficient ("Inside this mass of green stuff is a piece of GW sprue, cut up for an armature"). There are some elements which GW has attached particular significanct to (e.g., the double-headed eagle); you probably shouldn't cast those.

Past that, though? I have some colleagues who spend significant time (and get paid significant bucks) to answer questions like that.

The Power Cosmic wrote:I say that since GW discontinued their bits service, they're encouraging you to make copies of stuff for conversion.

Or perhaps they are encouraging you to buy expensive, complete kits for a few minor parts.

Actually- GW only has the rights to the 'Imperial' double Eagle.

If someone wants to toe the line and put any of the numerous heraldric double eagles (of which like 90% have thier wings downward instead of upraised like the Imperial one) I dont think GW can do much about it. They didnt create the double eagle, they just have the rights to the one they've associated with their IP.

The double-headed eagle is not a good example, actually

It is such an old Imperial symbol, used by many countries and cultures throughout Europe, there is no way GW could claim copyright in it.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=double-headed%20Eagle&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

Remember when once upon a time there where articles in White Dwarf on how to convert stuff? I still have a MkI rhino converted into a WhirlWind just using rhino bits and a large square base.

And doing Green stuff impressions.....sigh....

And now we're reduced to wondering if its ok to convert something and make copies of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The double-headed eagle is not a good example, actually

It is such an old Imperial symbol, used by many countries and cultures throughout Europe, there is no way GW could claim copyright in it.

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=double-headed%20Eagle&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

http://uk.games-workshop.com/legal/copyrights/

Fifth line down- in the middle Double Headed/Imperial Eagle Device I've been doing a bit 'o research lately.

I agree with you though, its kind of absurd for them to think they can enforce the copyright on every double eagle out there.

Anyone can claim a copyright, and then fight it out in court if they claim someone has infringed it.

IMO there are various copyrights that GW claim, which if challenged, would fail. The double-headed eagle, Orks and Eldar being examples. However it's not worth anyone's while to challenge GW over them.

Kilkrazy wrote:Anyone can claim a copyright, and then fight it out in court if they claim someone has infringed it.

IMO there are various copyrights that GW claim, which if challenged, would fail. The double-headed eagle, Orks and Eldar being examples. However it's not worth anyone's while to challenge GW over them.

It's actually not copyright I'm concerned about, w/respect to the double eagle. It's their trademark rights.

Trademark rights would stop someone trading models marked with the GW eagle but they don't apply to making your own.

Kilkrazy wrote:Trademark rights would stop someone trading models marked with the GW eagle but they don't apply to making your own.

Trademark designates origin of a good; if you play with your own models carrying GW's trademarks in any public venue, GW has a solid argument based on confusion.

Kilkrazy wrote:The double-headed eagle is not a good example, actually

Actually, it is.

The concept of a double-headed eagle isn't copyrightable.

The Imperial Eagle, in abstract triangular wing format is a copyrighted specific design.

The Black Templar (Maltese) Cross is a historical, non-copyrightable design.

Miguelsan wrote:
Quite a few GW´s IP have started as derivatives either from common folklore or other SciFi Works.

Good point. I'd forgotten how it is ok for GW to appropriate and derive from other peoples work, but woe betide the melon-fether who steals their gak. Which is just how big business runs, I guess.

Janthkin wrote:

grizgrin wrote:After some of the other recasting threads ... are profit margin driven as any good corp should be.

WHat does dakka think?

What do you mean by "legit?"

If the question is "is it legal," the answer is "insufficient data." There are some scenarios where you may be starting with so small a part of GW's IP, or have changed it so drastically by conversion, that you have an original work. There are other scenarioswhere your modifications have only created a deriviative work. There is not, however, a particularly useful "bright line" test. There are some things which would be obviously insufficient ("Look, I added extra nipples to my daemonettes!"), and some which would be obviously sufficient ("Inside this mass of green stuff is a piece of GW sprue, cut up for an armature"). There are some elements which GW has attached particular significanct to (e.g., the double-headed eagle); you probably shouldn't cast those.

Past that, though? I have some colleagues who spend significant time (and get paid significant bucks) to answer questions like that.

My guess is it will certainly remain insufficient data as well, Jan. I mean, I'm looking at stuff that wouldn't be worth a good night out in a strip club, much less meriting the services of your colleagues. Whilst leery of throwing a moral question to the winds in favor of expendiency, sometimes recon by fire is the only way to get the intel you need.

Kilkrazy wrote:

The Power Cosmic wrote:I say that since GW discontinued their bits service, they're encouraging you to make copies of stuff for conversion.

Or perhaps they are encouraging you to buy expensive, complete kits for a few minor parts.

They WANT you to buy the kits of course. THey would be happy if they had the modeling equivalent of crackheads out doing some B&E to get the cash for their fix. But by making the bits harder to get ahold of from the source, the only thing they are TRULY encouraging is sourcing the same bits from other sources.

grizgrin wrote:

Miguelsan wrote:
Quite a few GW´s IP have started as derivatives either from common folklore or other SciFi Works.

Good point. I'd forgotten how it is ok for GW to appropriate and derive from other peoples work, but woe betide the melon-fether who steals their gak. Which is just how big business runs, I guess.

This is true to a certain extent, but very un-true at the same time, which is how design often works. You need to derive your core concept from something tangible, and when you are working on a project that involves relatively large amounts of money, you will HAVE to be standard at some point, or the design might be a risky one. This is all well and good in reality, for an independent sculptor/conceptual artist, it is truly up to the client to specify what they want. A lot of the time you will get a pure and simple "Meh" when you ask a lot of questions, and herein lies the rub, because a conceptual artist (graphic designer or what have you) has a duty to develop something that will appeal to the very customer (GW could be one of these customers, I do not truly know) that is basically ignoring your query.

So, while you may think that the GW sculpts are just pulled out of Gorka Morkas butt, I would have to inform you that you have been clearly misled by something.

Just because striking scorpions look a LOT like predators, does not really effect their coolness factor very much at all.

I could go deeply into this, but I have been typing too much about simple things like standing on soil and being on soil because of it...

For me it is. BECAUSE they look a lot like predators, is the reason the Striking Scorps are the only GW miniatures I use in my so called Eldar Army (well not true, I also have a Maugan Ra and a Shadowseer)

M.