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.

Stelek wrote:Legally, you aren't doing anything wrong--despite all the claims otherwise.

GW can tell you to take your 'fakes' and get out of events they run, but they don't prosecute (or even threaten it) unless you intend to sell their figures AND claim they are original.

It's an important point, lost on many.

Yours is an interesting world, in which legality depends solely on whether or not you get prosecuted for something.

Janthkin wrote:

Marshal Torrick wrote:Ok are we talking the incident with Governor Boggs or something else? If it is the Missouri death order, just remember that "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

We're talking about recasting of copyrighted little toy soldiers. No clue what you're talking about.

That was just in reference to Doctor Thunders comment that he doesn't support the law much because:

"I think it has something to do with the fact that not too many generations ago, the authorities in north america attempted to genocidally wipe out my people."

If he's from the group I suspect he is, and which I am as well, my post was to remind him that we, regardless of what happened, should obey the law.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Otherwise anyone can "ethically" disobey any law, by saying he disbelieves in it, and all laws become a matter of convenience. (Admittedly, most people do this in some way or other -- I speed on the motorway.)

And I refuse to be drafted and die for a country that hates me. (It hasn't happened yet but if I did I would refuse to obey)

So, both you and I agree in principal that laws can ethically be ignored, it is just in the details of which laws we chose to ignore that we disagree.

nice debate.. let's get back on topic..

The topic is what people think about recasting.

So our comments are completely relevant.

Few understand recasting and derivative works.

Here goes, buy a model, any model, make as many copies as you want! It doesnt mater at all, heck make copy molds of the new ones!

Until you proffit from it it doesnt matter, and even then, for OOP models? Yea it doesn't matter at all.

Also for derivative works, as in the conversions that were recast, they are derivative works, that is unique so that REALLY doesn't matter.

Acting like GW ninjas are going to fall from the roof and imprison you if you copy something (of any vintage) makes me completely laugh, real modelers copy stuff all the time, it's actually a legitimate part of the hobby.

Also with inexplicable removal of the bitz from GW it has been an absolute pleasure to watch all the bits trader sites spring up all over the place.

After how many years of draconian internet sales IP chasing? Ha ha ha, here it is all over again, they just open the packs...

I surely hope there is an entire community of recasters out there who go ahead and make their own bits now that GW quit supporting them with a decent service. I know I do!

Augustus wrote:Few understand recasting and derivative works.

Here goes, buy a model, any model, make as many copies as you want! It doesnt mater at all, heck make copy molds of the new ones!

Wrong.

Title 17 wrote:
Section 101:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Section 106:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
...
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
....

Section 202:
Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.

I don't care about your personal opinions about following the law. But you do everyone a disservice when you misstate what the law IS.

I suggest the thread should be locked.

The OP has got plenty of varying opinions on his query and can make his own mind up.

I doubt there will be a resolution of the ethical argument.

No, do not lock. It is good to get thee arguements out in the open. It is also a useful discussion. Note that there is nothing in the word arguement that in itself implies raised voices and bared teeth. My turn now.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:Legally, you're never going to get punished, and morally, your not hurting anybody.

Ethically though, you are doing something you know is wrong, for no reason except personal satisfaction.

While this is hopelesly optimistic I generally prefer to think law should follow medicine in that its primary condition should be 'do no harm'.

Janthkin wrote:
If you're not looking for validation, I'm not sure why you are sharing.

(Disclaimer: While I am an IP lawyer, I am not your lawyer. The following is not intended as legal advice, and we have no legal relationship. If you want legal advice, find one of my colleagues in your jurisdiction and pay for it.)

Interesting, then you will know that a lot of IP law is based on bullying and what you can get away with. Conversely if you dont defend IP when challenged it can set a precedent fior it to be lost. Both correct, yes?
If so no wonder IP law is such a mess.

Stelek wrote:Why don't you ask GW?

Er, very bad idea. For a start GW are not known for rational reactions, second it puts them on the spot. Deliberately drawing a breach to their attention is asking to be stepped on. For example the police often turn a blind eye to a bit of weed, but I am sure if you walk up to them and roll a fatty in their faces they will get officious. Same principle applies, and no that is not a pro-drugs comment.

Stelek wrote:
You have noticed all the scratch-built titans that ARE costing GW money, and they don't give a flying .

Agreed, GW deliberately put Warlord titans in Apocalypse, and plenty of obivous scratch build Stompas too. They are encouraging scratchbuilding, the scratchbuilds are you property and you can sell them. if however you started 'producing' cast titans for sale they will react. However I doubt it is costing Gw money. whoever buys the wooden warlord posted here recently probably wants or has got an apocalypse ready army to go with it. Warlord scratchbuilds drive sales up by increasing the senisible collection limit for more players encouraging them to think a dozen tanks rather than three or four.

Wizards reaklised the truth of this when they placed a copyleft on the core rules of D&D, by allowing third parties to add their own supplements the core hobby expanded and revenues increased.

Orlanth wrote:

Janthkin wrote:
If you're not looking for validation, I'm not sure why you are sharing.

(Disclaimer: While I am an IP lawyer, I am not your lawyer. The following is not intended as legal advice, and we have no legal relationship. If you want legal advice, find one of my colleagues in your jurisdiction and pay for it.)

Interesting, then you will know that a lot of IP law is based on bullying and what you can get away with. Conversely if you dont defend IP when challenged it can set a precedent fior it to be lost. Both correct, yes?
If so no wonder IP law is such a mess.

No, neither are correct. IP law, in the US at least, incorporates protections for both the IP owner and non-owners. None of the defenses operates here, however.

Speaking EXTREMELY broadly, trademarks have a requirement that you defend them; copyright does not.

Orlanth wrote:Wizards reaklised the truth of this when they placed a copyleft on the core rules of D&D, by allowing third parties to add their own supplements the core hobby expanded and revenues increased.

Wizards didn't copyleft anything; they included a open-ended license that allowed others to make use of their ruleset, provided certain restrictions were observed.

Janthkin wrote:

Stelek wrote:Legally, you aren't doing anything wrong--despite all the claims otherwise.

GW can tell you to take your 'fakes' and get out of events they run, but they don't prosecute (or even threaten it) unless you intend to sell their figures AND claim they are original.

It's an important point, lost on many.

Yours is an interesting world, in which legality depends solely on whether or not you get prosecuted for something.

Welcome to the United States.

Janthkin wrote:

Title 17 wrote:
Section 101:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Janthkin, as a musician I find this quite interesting. I have a question regarding this as it applies to musical arrangement, and so as not to drive this thread too off-topic, would you mind if I sent you a PM about it? Before you feel the need to drop one of your disclaimers again, I'm not looking for legal advice, just some basic info.

Or if you prefer, I could start a thread on it in the Off-Topic section.

NOTE: to the casual reader, if you are legitimately concerned about this, go learn it for yourself at:

http://www.copyright.gov

Allow me to retort, derivative works for personal use are completely legal, ethical, and a legitimate part of the hobby because of the fair use clauses!

Quoted from: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

...

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

So you see, until you sell it, for profit, or give it away and compromise the value of the copyrighted work, you're in the clear.

*Spell Edit

Augustus wrote:NOTE: to the casual reader, if you are legitimately concerned about this, go learn it for yourself at:

http://www.copyright.gov

Allow me to retort, derivative works for personal use are completely legal, ethical, and a legitimate part of the hobby because of the fair use clauses!

Quoted from: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

...

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

So you see, until you sell it, for profit, or give it away and compromise the value of the copyrighted work, you're in the clear.

*Spell Edit

What the Fair Use clauses provide is possible defences against a charge of copyright violation. It would be up to the court to decide if the recasting constituted fair use or not in any particular case.

The "nonprofit" and "potential market" angles are only factors to be considered and are not decisive in themselves.

first off throw the legality out the window, it is ilegal but so is gluing penny's to the mini's base.

I plan on making a scout speeder for my 'nurse core' out of the old speeder models and making molds of them if I keep in the game.

Augustus wrote:Also with inexplicable removal of the bitz from GW it has been an absolute pleasure to watch all the bits trader sites spring up all over the place.

After how many years of draconian internet sales IP chasing? Ha ha ha, here it is all over again, they just open the packs...

I surely hope there is an entire community of recasters out there who go ahead and make their own bits now that GW quit supporting them with a decent service. I know I do!

WOO! YEAH! SMASH THE STATE! REVOLUTION! ANARCHISTS UNITE! (spot the oxymoron)

Fair Use policy....well, that depends on the subject of fair use. Recasting a small piece, like Purity Seals....yeah, thats fair use. But Plasma Guns etc....thats not entirely-fair-use really.

The difference here is that Trench Raider would be seemingly willing to buy through legitimate means the models he wishes to convert and that, but as no alternative is forthcoming, the fair use could be seen, in this example, to accomodate re-cast models. As I said in my original post, it's still naughty, but acceptable (like speeding to get an injured person to Hospital quicker.)

But, just because you deem their service lacking, does not extend fair use to not paying for things currently available. This is akin to speeding because you are late for work. Both, to the person in question, seem reasonable, but both had perfectly viable alternatives (visit a Bitz Store, or get up and out the house earlier).

I mean, Dakka even has it's own swap shop. I'm sure other members would be more than happy to furnish you with the bits you are after....

But hey, power to the people yo! Mans got a right to feel the buzz of doing something slightly naughty like a desperado!

OH and with regard to the Bitz Sellers opening up the packs....you are *happy* about some sod ripping you off? If you have a trade account with GW, be it an Online or FLGS, you pay the same amount. Thus, if they are splitting the packs down and selling the bitz off at a premium, it's you being ripped off. Not GW. *You*. And this is why GW are closing trade accounts with certain culprits. The Trade Agreement states you cannot split the pack down, and you must sell as supplied. GW aren't looking after their own pocket there. It's yours, mine and other gamers. Some evil empire huh?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:WOO! YEAH! SMASH THE STATE! REVOLUTION! ANARCHISTS UNITE! (spot the oxymoron)

I'm having a little trouble finding it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:OH and with regard to the Bitz Sellers opening up the packs....you are *happy* about some sod ripping you off? If you have a trade account with GW, be it an Online or FLGS, you pay the same amount. Thus, if they are splitting the packs down and selling the bitz off at a premium, it's you being ripped off. Not GW. *You*. And this is why GW are closing trade accounts with certain culprits. The Trade Agreement states you cannot split the pack down, and you must sell as supplied. GW aren't looking after their own pocket there. It's yours, mine and other gamers. Some evil empire huh?

What a crock! Back when BWBits still lived (before GW killed them) I picked up a bunch of Meltaguns for much cheaper (including postage from the US) than GW was selling them at with their bits service. They're not an Evil Empire but GW have never looked after my pocket over their own.

In this hobby if you deem something worth the cost you're not being ripped off.

The Oxymoron was Anarchists Unite.
Being anarchists, any kind of organisation to do with such in inherently non-anarchic, thus an oxymoron.

Anarchists don't have leaders, there's nothing to stop them uniting. Anarchism does not preclude cooperation.

Further to the re-making your own figures debate since Tallarn rough riders are now defunct I may have a crack at making their torso's for my second squad of Cold One riding Rough Riders. Unless anyone knows where they are available.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/IMPERIAL-GUARD-TALLARN-ROUGH-RIDER-NEW_W0QQitemZ270278489147QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item270278489147&_trkparms=72%3A1301%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

BIGGEDYBIGGEDYBONG!

Thus, these are still feely (and cheaply) available through legitimate means. The Space Slann however are quite the rarity. Just searched for them on Ebay, and found two Blisters of Fantasy Slann.....

yeah,

What I don't understand is why you didn't just cast the parts you need to convert some slan to heavy weapons guys...
using your own IP: design your own slann HW arms or Slann Heavy weapon platform. and Cast those.
then buy GW Heavy Weapons and convert the completed Slann heavy weapon trooper.

recasting whole models is wrong. There is no such thing as a victim less crime
somewhere someone is doing this the right way and paying for his army. he deserves to be the only one with a fully slan army, not you.

Oh and post pictures of your slann army... or it never happened .

PaniC...

He did didn't he? Sure there are pics of it floating around on Dakka.

Recasting, casting and converting are part of the hobby. I'd say that recasting a vintage figure for personal use places you morally in the clear. Are you making money from it? No. Does it cost GW money? No. Does it compromise their IP? Unlikely, they don't even carry the range.

Come on, all, this legal finger wagging is self righteous nonsense, lets look at the real world. Of the people who have tutted about your recasting, who has made a copy of music at home? Who has photocopied something they shouldn't have? Who has lent a video or DVD to a friend?

You're not going to be prosecuted and if GW don't like what you're doing they will let you know by sending a cease and desist order first. Should that happen, and I highly doubt it, then you should comply.

And where do you draw the line on recasting and converting? Say you wanted a whole army of Imperial Fists to do and you wanted the Fist marked shoulder pads for them all. Here are your options...

Buy legal metal shoulder pads for every one

Buy some metal ones and recast to get enough

-

Get normal plastic shoulder pads and convert each one with greenstuff to copy the metal ones.

Convert one normal plastic shoulder pad and recast the rest from that.

-

Entirely scratchbuild all the shouldpads individually so the are indistinguishable from the ones GW supply.

Scratchbuild one entirely and recast from that.

The end result in each case appears exactly the same. Which is legal and which isn't? You're reproducing the image of GW copyrighted material in every case apart from when you buy.

Is it ok to sculpt a figure entirely from greenstuff to use in your army? Can you then recast that figure, or parts of it for yourself? How many recasts? Can you recast your whole army from that figure? Can you make one bolter and recast that for your army?

Bolter no, not if it is based on GW's design, or a derivative thereof.

Same with your own figures, unless you wish to have, purely for example, a home made army of Star Bears using the Space Marine rules. Then you are in the clear, as the Star Bears have nowt to do with GW.

The law is pretty clear cut.

And as to Trenchie's recasting, it's still not 'morally in the clear' but there is no real alternative, ergo it is understandable. See my earlier examples of driving above the Speed Limits. It is ALWAYS illegal, but in some cases it is more justifiable and likely to have a blind eye turned to it.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Bolter no, not if it is based on GW's design, or a derivative thereof.

How far does that extend? Just bolters or whole Space Marines? Can you scratch build reproductions of GW stuff and recast that? You could make a whole army without buying a single product, and while this is a grey area I think that would be well over the line.

Nope. Essentially, if you sculpt your own Marines, and they look like Marines, you have created a derivative, and strictly speaking, you have infringed on GW's IP.

But sculpting your own range of models, and then using them for 'Counts As' gaming is fine, as the designs are your own.

Quite a few companies have had GW's Lawyers knocking on their doors about derivatives and that. I believe one of them used Azrael's Combi-Weapon, recast and claimed 'all me own work guv'. Yeah. Honest.

Sorry, double post.

Recasting isn't legal just because we can't buy the part from GW any more. Nor it is legal because we just don't want to pay for the legitimate parts.

If we recast rather than search eBay, etc. we are depriving owners who would have liked to sell us legitimate parts.

Just because we don't get caught recasting, doesn't make it legal or moral.

Just because someone has an illegally copied CD, it doesn't justify us recasting stuff. (It makes them a hypocrite for attacking us.)

Now let's look at the ethical case.

This can be considered from several angles.

1. What is the balance of benefit and harm to the people and companies involved?

If we want to recast a small number of items, for private use only, and they complete an army that would otherwise have been wasted, and we have tried and failed in legal ways of getting the parts needed, then in my opinion we have a case for doing the recasting. No-one is harmed, and we benefit as do our future opponents, and we avoid the waste of resources that went into the rest of the figures in your army. However we must still recognise that recasting is illegal.

2. Does society as a whole suffer from the law being flouted?

Arguably yes, however as long as we the recaster recognize we are breaking the law, and don’t boast about it and spread our skills and products, there should be no ill effects on the law as a whole.

Augustus wrote:NOTE: to the casual reader, if you are legitimately concerned about this, go learn it for yourself at:

http://www.copyright.gov

Allow me to retort, derivative works for personal use are completely legal, ethical, and a legitimate part of the hobby because of the fair use clauses!

Quoted from: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

...the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

...

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

So you see, until you sell it, for profit, or give it away and compromise the value of the copyrighted work, you're in the clear.

*Spell Edit

Go back and reread section 107. What you listed are merely factors to be considered in determining whether something is fair use or not; as the courts say EVERY TIME they discuss Fair Use, no single factor is definitive. And neither factor 1 nor 4 are as simple as you might believe - it's not a binary "are you selling it?" test. Factor 4, in particular, is a sticky one, and may hinge on GW's plans for the range, as well as the 40k universe as a whole. I'd also point you back to the part BEFORE the list of factors - Fair Use exists primarily for the benefit of criticism and discussion, not recasting because we don't want to chop up expensive OOP models.

To say nothing of factors 2 & 3, which you conveniently left out:

Title 17, Section 107 wrote:
(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

The nature of the work here is sculpture (as opposed to, say, a phone book, which has a more limited "creative" element). As we're discussing recasting, we're talking complete copies of the work.

Kilkrazy wrote:Recasting isn't legal just because we can't buy the part from GW any more. Nor it is legal because we just don't want to pay for the legitimate parts.

If we recast rather than search eBay, etc. we are depriving owners who would have liked to sell us legitimate parts.

Just because we don't get caught recasting, doesn't make it legal or moral.

...

However we must still recognise that recasting is illegal.

No we don't have to recognize that, thats just wrong. As quoted earlier, unless its for proffit, or deprives the owner of value in the market, it's in the clear. Quoted directly from the rules in the US gov. website in my earlier post.