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.

this is the problem with GW, they want to sue thier own customers.

Yeah- I wonder what the difference between modification and copying is- especially of one item made by a company into another item made by a company?

smart_alex wrote:this is the problem with GW, they want to sue thier own customers.

For adapting to get around something that GW voluntarily abandoned (selling bitz) no less.

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure what your point is. Conversions aren't copies. You can buy a Terminator and convert it into a librarian. What is being described is the following:
Buying a model
Using it to create a mold
Using the mold to create copies

That's a violation of copyright. If the question is "will I get sued?", that's a much more difficult question.

There's a lot of false information out there regarding copyrights, which is a shame considering how much of the actual law is available for free over the internet or at your local law library.

Respectfully I don't think that is what the argument is.
buying a model
making a mold of a piece of that model
buying more GW models
putting those molds on GW models.

Its WYSIWYG. Its all GW so good for tournaments. GW itself has at one time or another offered tips on greenstuff molding icons and such. Unless you're selling the stuff its not an issue IN THE REAL WORLD.

Here is the actual US law explaing what the rights of a copyright holder are:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html

The idea is that only the holder may do or authorize any of those things. The very first one is to create copies.

You're arguing (perhaps rightly) that there is an implied authorization for press molding small bitz. Certainly a WD article showing how to do it, and the overall "converting is a key element to the hobby" philosophy endorsed by GW could shore up that claim. I was under the impression that the OP wanted to take a model, and use a mold to make a copy of an earlier, rare, and presumably more valuable model. GW's argument would be "while we encourage customers to make their own creations, we also encourage collectors to buy our models, and copies hurt our business."

BTW, here's the link explaining why GW doesn't actually have to show lost sales or even any actual damages to make your life hell:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html

It's a provision for so called statutory, or "making a point" damages. Basically GW can ask for them instead of what they actually suffered (because their real damages are zero.)

I'm not a lawyer, and I can't give legal advice, but I do know that there is only one case in lexis-nexis (an online database of court opinions) in which GW was suing a duper. there are undoubtedly more, but Lexis only turns up appeals cases, federal cases, and interesting trial court cases. In that case, the guy ignored multiple cease and desist letters, and was selling on eBay. GW really doesn't make a habit of suing it's customers. For a while, it was sending C&D letters to anybody using their IP online, but that's not suing.

To answer the Op's question:
Copies are generally not legal, but you may have implied permission. The odds of GW even noticing, let alone actually bringing action, are probably pretty small, but I wouldn't trust the word of anybody on the internet on legal matters, even myself. This is why lawyers make the money they do.

Depending on the amount of the original unstudded shoulder pad found in the new version, the partly remoulded version might count as a derivative work and therefore be subject to copyright. That would be decided by the court.

There is another issue in that GW also hold a copyright in the design of the shoulderpad. Making your own version from scratch may be a violation of the design copyright.

The moral/ethical point IMO is that since GW no longer supply the parts needed to make the model, the end user has no recourse but to make them himself.

The moral/ethical point IMO is that since GW no longer supply the parts needed to make the model, the end user has no recourse but to make them himself.

Pretty weak point, actually. The end user does not need the discontinued parts to live; he needs them to make his toy soldiers look exactly as he wants them to look. Let's not try to claim any moral or ethical supremacy here.

I'm not claiming supremacy, however GW are not harmed by the user making the parts he wants as they are not losing any sales to him, so there is no apparent downside.

Actually they are gaining sales, as you still have to buy the marine minis you are going to tweek.

Protection of intellectual property extends beyond simple "loss of sales", which is a large portion of the rationale behind statutory damages.

While I am an IP lawyer, I'm not offering any legal advice here, just commenting on the hypothetical. In my opinion, the hypothetical actions initially described (and especially some of the absurd claims offered by later posters) fall within the scope of US copyright law (which is similar to copyright in many other countries). Draw your own conclusions from there.

chromedog wrote: Tell them they were all individually sculpted onto the sodding shoulderpads.

Yeah. Honesty is over-rated.

Savnock wrote:Yeah- I wonder what the difference between modification and copying is- especially of one item made by a company into another item made by a company?

Depends how expensive each item is.

Kilkrazy wrote:The moral/ethical point IMO is that since GW no longer supply the parts needed to make the model, the end user has no recourse but to make them himself.

Is that actually the case though? Studded shoulder pads are still available in tactical squad boxes. Sure the fact that they only come one per box might make them prohibitively expensive to obtain, but is it not within GW's right to make their IP prohibitively expensive to obtain?

Honesty, it seems, actually is over-rated, judging by the stream of lies we all tell ourselves - and the justifications to go with them so that we believe them. We all do it, anyone who says they've never told a lie was probably lying.*

They still need to PROVE you did it (unless you willingly write it down, stating you did, in fact, do it - a confession - that proof will be hard to get.) in order to get anywhere, legally. Hearing you say it doesn't count (except in slander.)

Really, what is the difference between sculpting an identical copy of something (size, shape, whatever), and making a press-mould and duplicating it? Both are violating the IP.

They still need to PROVE you did it (unless you willingly write it down, stating you did, in fact, do it - a confession - that proof will be hard to get.) in order to get anywhere, legally. Hearing you say it doesn't count (except in slander.)

This is wrong. To succeed in a civil case, all that's necessary is a preponderence of the evidence - it's more likely than not that something occured. And your published statements that you intend to do something can decidedly be used as evidence.

Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

Savnock wrote:Yeah- I wonder what the difference between modification and copying is- especially of one item made by a company into another item made by a company?

Depends how expensive each item is.

Kilkrazy wrote:The moral/ethical point IMO is that since GW no longer supply the parts needed to make the model, the end user has no recourse but to make them himself.

Is that actually the case though? Studded shoulder pads are still available in tactical squad boxes. Sure the fact that they only come one per box might make them prohibitively expensive to obtain, but is it not within GW's right to make their IP prohibitively expensive to obtain?

You are exactly right. However this causes the situation where this guy needs to spend $10 or something for a small part of one figure. GW could easily makes the individual parts available -- as I understand the case, they used to supply them separately at a reasonable price but they have recently withdrawn them without warning.

Everyone makes some kind of moral calculation in such a situation. We weigh up the factors -- how much harm will it cause? Will I get away with it? We have a sense of fairness -- it could be skewed and wrong.

Few people are so scrupulously honest they will never violate any kind of law, human nature being what it is. Who amongst us has not parked for 2 minutes on a yellow line for some quick errand?

I was under the impression that one would have to resell the copied models to be in violation of a copyright.

That said, what sort of world do you guys live in that you worry about this? In the world I live in, you have to be fairly egregious in your harassment or abuse of your fellow man before anybody even bothers to take legal action against you.

If this is just a curiousity issue, and we're wondering where the lines on copyright law are drawn, then I don't know why everyone is speculating baselessly.

If you're seriously worrying.... Dude, stop. Nobody cares. Not even GW.

I was under the impression that one would have to resell the copied models to be in violation of a copyright.

You are mistaken, then.

That said, what sort of world do you guys live in that you worry about this? In the world I live in, you have to be fairly egregious in your harassment or abuse of your fellow man before anybody even bothers to take legal action against you.

As I mentioned above, I'm an IP lawyer. My career is based around protecting the intellectual property of various companies (though I'm not a litigator). And yeah - in my world, things like people copying my clients' IP is a concern.

Mostly, I'm just trying to keep people from reaching false conclusions about what is allowable (and stop people with no idea what they're talking about from giving others bad advice).

Ok, then, riddle me this Janthkin.

What does an ip lawyer/40k player have anything to do with
an avatar of a frog? I've been trying to figure that one for
a while now.

Thanks for pointing out US Law. Is US law the strictest one
in terms of copyright? I remember part of the history of
copyright in the US was born out of rampant piracy in the
book industry, but somehow everything changed when
people started selling their goods in the US...

Polonius wrote:

I'm not a lawyer, and I can't give legal advice, but I do know that there is only one case in lexis-nexis (an online database of court opinions) in which GW was suing a duper. there are undoubtedly more, but Lexis only turns up appeals cases, federal cases, and interesting trial court cases. In that case, the guy ignored multiple cease and desist letters, and was selling on eBay. GW really doesn't make a habit of suing it's customers. For a while, it was sending C&D letters to anybody using their IP online, but that's not suing.

To answer the Op's question:
Copies are generally not legal, but you may have implied permission. The odds of GW even noticing, let alone actually bringing action, are probably pretty small, but I wouldn't trust the word of anybody on the internet on legal matters, even myself. This is why lawyers make the money they do.

The case is Games Workshop Ltd. v. Beal. Quite an interesting case since GW was suing Beal for over $189,000 in damages in the Western District court of Missouri. This is actually a Federal case filed around 2003. The court lowered the damages and attorney fees to just a bit above $54,000.

This was only the Civil case. I'm not sure if Beal was indicted for fraud/theft or anything else in a criminal cause of action.

Beal was blatantly making duplicates of GW figures and selling them on Ebay.

Implicity would involve some sort of Agency power and as an individual there is no implied power given by GW for anyone to duplicate their miniatures. The only implied power that may occur is when a GW employee who may have some authority that may be assumed to have implied power to make certain decisions

malfred wrote:Ok, then, riddle me this Janthkin.

What does an ip lawyer/40k player have anything to do with
an avatar of a frog? I've been trying to figure that one for
a while now.

I think it's a toad, actually. While I was in law school, it came hopping onto my apartment porch several nights in a row, staring into apartment in that way toads have. I took a picture. And it was most convenient when I went to find an avatar pic.

malfred wrote:Thanks for pointing out US Law. Is US law the strictest one
in terms of copyright? I remember part of the history of
copyright in the US was born out of rampant piracy in the
book industry, but somehow everything changed when
people started selling their goods in the US...

US Law is actually MORE permissive than English or Australian law - we have "Fair Use" built into our copyright law.

However, "Fair Use" is being used as a limit (i.e. the Consumer may do no more than what Fair Use allows), when Fair Use really ought to be the median of permissibility. In addition, in many cases (DCMA, CSS), Fair Use rights are eroded or denied due to DRM. Further, the US fails to recognized "Moral Rights" which are standard throughout much of the civilized world.

Because US Law was written primarily by and for Copyright holders, from a practical standpoint, the US Law is the most restrictive in the world.

British copyright law also recognises the concept of Fair Use (or Fair Dealing.)

the question is, do you care,
will the staff care or will them liek your models alot more not to care

I think you would care when GW files a claim against you.

Do you really want to spend thousands of dollars over a suit?

Like I said, I just wouldn't tell them they were 'cast'.

I don't play in GW stores, so for me the point is irrelevant.
I do organise and play in club games/tournaments, though (and even though GW DOES provide prize sponsorship for the events, they don't enforce their minimum 75% GW model stance with us).

The thing that makes me curious is when does using something as a component of a mold become allowable. Is using it in a non-standard way allowed?

For example, I assume that making copies of a specific bolt or gear design from the hardware store would be illegal. However, what if it's used in a 'non standard' way, such as for detailing a shield or similar? Is this acceptable, if it's a component of a larger collage?