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.

Grakmar wrote:This is pretty funny, but be careful! Copyright violation is a relatively minor offense. What you did could be counter-fitting, which is MUCH more serious. Even if it was clearly fake, you tried to use it as an actual payment which is taken rather seriously by the secret service.

I completely understand, technically I might have been charged with a felony. We only printed them single-sided and didn't even cut them from the 8" x 10" page, so I felt that, given the context, and the fact that we made no attempt to make them look real, I would be very unlikely to be prosecuted, much less convicted.

Grakmar wrote:

col. krazy kenny wrote:Question is it illegal to recast for yourself? I understand it being illegal for sales. but for personal use?

Definitely yes (in the US at least). There are some "fair use" exceptions to copyright, but they do not include anything like "Personal use rather than commercial". And, I think you'll have a very hard time convincing a judge you were using these as a purely research basis

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JohnHwangDD wrote:All GW models are protected by copyright laws across the globe.

Well, that's simply not true. Afghanistan, Laos, and the Marshall Islands don't have any copyright protection. Many countries also have rather short copyright laws, for example Syria only grants 10 years from production for group copyrights (that's GW models). There's also many countries that require periodic fees to keep the copyright valid.

P.S. In my research for this comment, I confirmed that in Spain (as in all EU countries), GW models are definitely covered by copyright protection and will be for the next ~70 years.

Correct. "Personal use" meaning "because I don't want to pay more for the actual product" is not a protected "fair use".

Sorry, I was a bit unclear. I should have said "GW models are protected by copyright laws (in practically all locations) across the globe", not "(in every single location) across the globe".
____

BloodQuest wrote:

Savnock wrote:Getting the guy(s) booted from eBay shouldn't be hard though.

Harder than you might think - ebay will carry on collecting their commission for as long as they possibly can - the main reason I won't be voting for Meg Whitman as California governor!

A couple of years back, I saw a guy on ebay selling pirate copies of some software I use, made by a small company who were good guys. Pointed out to eBay who did absolutely nothing about it, so we created a new ebay id, won all his auctions and then sent him photocopied money in payment. Never did receive the discs, though!

I have no beef with eBay per se, but I've got an axe to grind against PayPal, so she's not getting my vote.

Good one. WRT counterfeiting charges, if these were clear fakes (e.g. Monopoly money), then there's nothing to worry about.

Even if they were good fakes, you can't enforce a contract to to do anything illegal. It'd be funny if they were to press the point, as the first admission would have to be that they were engaged in fraud themselves, so any claim for payment would be tossed on that basis.

The only valid complaint is by eBay for TOS violation, which is cured by suspending the fake account.

Grakmar wrote:But, if you make a substantive change to the model, you do, in fact, gain your own copyright on it.

Not being argumentative, but even that doesn't help you much because the copyrights and trademarks underlying the basic design would protect them.

So, if you completely scratch-built some (say) Space Marines for game use you would be quite within your rights. But if you marketed them as (say) Star Troopers, and they were recognisably Space Marines they could come after you.

Many years ago a LGS I went to would give away resin/epoxy recast hex bases when you would buy a Battletech mech.

In typical fashion they were poor castings, usually wonky and off level. Still thought it was a cool gesture though.

I really wish Iron Wind would have addressed this when taking over the Battletech minis and include a base w each mech. Its quite annoying to order a mech or three, only to get them and realize you are out of, or dont have enough, hex bases and now you have to go back to the store (If you have a LGS) or place another order and wait.

col. krazy kenny wrote:Question is it illegal to recast for yourself? I understand it being illegal for sales. but for personal use?

Yes. Violation of copyright.

However I agree this is not the topic of the thread and people should stick to the point.

Speaking of Rackham in particular, does anyone actually own the copyrights to the old metals currently? I would guess Rackham does themselves, but then I don't know how it holds up if you yourself are not producing, and further I would suspect they sold the molds to someone when they got out of the metals business.

I guess my broader question is: Does anyone know what the status is of the Rackham metal molds and who has them?

Wehrkind wrote:Speaking of Rackham in particular, does anyone actually own the copyrights to the old metals currently? I would guess Rackham does themselves, but then I don't know how it holds up if you yourself are not producing, and further I would suspect they sold the molds to someone when they got out of the metals business.

I guess my broader question is: Does anyone know what the status is of the Rackham metal molds and who has them?

Well, they still hold the copyright, even if they are not producing. In most countries, a copyright does not require continuous production. Just like an out-of-print book, these would still be covered.

The only way a copyright can lapse is if people are commonly breaking the copyright and the person or persons holding it aren't bothering to go after them. If this continues long enough and at a great enough extent, then the copyright can sometimes be considered void. But, even then, there's no well defined line as to exactly when this happens.

As for Rackham's copyright's current status, I have no clue. They could have sold them, but, bottom line, someone owns the copyright, so you can't use it.

Doesn't GW have an article on their site on how to make a press mold?

I remember reading about this in another thread on Dakka recently. Someone asked and someone else posted a link to the GW article. I couldn't find the thread anymore just now and I'm not sure in which part of the forum it was.

It seems a bit strange to have such an article in light of their recasting policy.

(and can anyone find that link btw?)

GW intends that you press mold your own bitz to customise their stuff, not to rip off their IP.

Wehrkind wrote:Speaking of Rackham in particular, does anyone actually own the copyrights to the old metals currently? I would guess Rackham does themselves, but then I don't know how it holds up if you yourself are not producing, and further I would suspect they sold the molds to someone when they got out of the metals business.

I guess my broader question is: Does anyone know what the status is of the Rackham metal molds and who has them?

I'm pretty sure Dust Games has the copyright, at least to the Cadwe minis, sicne they're releasing Cadwallon: City Of Thieves in a few weeks and the minis seem to be plastic casts of the old Rackham Cadwe minis...

Grakmar wrote:

col. krazy kenny wrote:Question is it illegal to recast for yourself? I understand it being illegal for sales. but for personal use?

Definitely yes (in the US at least). There are some "fair use" exceptions to copyright, but they do not include anything like "Personal use rather than commercial".

It is not illegal to recast your miniatures in the united states. Fair Use laws in the United States -do- contain language about "Personal Use." Fair Use laws in the United States concern themselves, primarily, with a consumer's right to use his property as he wishes and in a creator's right to protect his future revenue.

You can buy a Van Gogh and make as many photo-copies of that painting as you want. You can buy a Christina Agulera CD and make as many CD copies of that as you want and you can buy a Space Marine and recast that thing until your brain is addled by resin fumes. It only becomes illegal when you share what you reproduce and even some forms of sharing are protected (such as using the items in a research or educational environment.)

It is a taboo, in this hobby, and if someone finds out that you've been recasting your marines, they'll think you're a dick. And if a shop owner finds out you've been recasting your minis instead of buying them from him, you're not going to make any friends there, either, but you're not going to be arrested, fined, or sued.

So what bitz are we talking about exactly? You know that when you publicly teach people methods to reproduce stuff it will unavoidably be used in ways that damage your own cause.

I think the thread I read mentioned the article explains how to make your own meltaguns. That must be untrue then (and that is why I want to read it myself).

I was just wondering on that question.Because i got around 100 grav chutes i need and a boatload of shotguns.Air assult conscripts!!As the Commisar kicks them out the door.Yelling for the emporer!!

redstripe wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

col. krazy kenny wrote:Question is it illegal to recast for yourself? I understand it being illegal for sales. but for personal use?

Definitely yes (in the US at least). There are some "fair use" exceptions to copyright, but they do not include anything like "Personal use rather than commercial".

It is not illegal to recast your miniatures in the united states. Fair Use laws in the United States -do- contain language about "Personal Use." Fair Use laws in the United States concern themselves, primarily, with a consumer's right to use his property as he wishes and in a creator's right to protect his future revenue.

You can buy a Van Gogh and make as many photo-copies of that painting as you want. You can buy a Christina Agulera CD and make as many CD copies of that as you want and you can buy a Space Marine and recast that thing until your brain is addled by resin fumes. It only becomes illegal when you share what you reproduce and even some forms of sharing are protected (such as using the items in a research or educational environment.)

It is a taboo, in this hobby, and if someone finds out that you've been recasting your marines, they'll think you're a dick. And if a shop owner finds out you've been recasting your minis instead of buying them from him, you're not going to make any friends there, either, but you're not going to be arrested, fined, or sued.

I'm sorry, but that isn't accurate. For reference, check out the US Copyright law section 107 on fair use: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

There are 4 criteria that need to be taken into account to determine if something is fair use:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
I don't think you can claim that making models for playing a game is part of a nonprofit educational purpose.

2) the nature of the copyrighted work
For this, you'd need to really dive in with a lawyer. This typically means that things that quickly become irrelevant (newspaper articles, for example) are more subject to fair use, but models are like any other sculpted work of art, also known as “Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works”, and I'm pretty sure that means they are very well protected.

3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
You are reproducing 100% of the copyright protected work.

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work
You are simply avoiding paying for models that you want, which definitely has an effect on the potential market for legitimate models.


No where does it say anything about "personal use". In fact, the word "personal" doesn't appear in the copyright code at all!

redstripe wrote:

Grakmar wrote:

col. krazy kenny wrote:Question is it illegal to recast for yourself? I understand it being illegal for sales. but for personal use?

Definitely yes (in the US at least). There are some "fair use" exceptions to copyright, but they do not include anything like "Personal use rather than commercial".

It is not illegal to recast your miniatures in the united states. Fair Use laws in the United States -do- contain language about "Personal Use." Fair Use laws in the United States concern themselves, primarily, with a consumer's right to use his property as he wishes and in a creator's right to protect his future revenue.

You can buy a Van Gogh and make as many photo-copies of that painting as you want. You can buy a Christina Agulera CD and make as many CD copies of that as you want and you can buy a Space Marine and recast that thing until your brain is addled by resin fumes. It only becomes illegal when you share what you reproduce and even some forms of sharing are protected (such as using the items in a research or educational environment.)

It is a taboo, in this hobby, and if someone finds out that you've been recasting your marines, they'll think you're a dick. And if a shop owner finds out you've been recasting your minis instead of buying them from him, you're not going to make any friends there, either, but you're not going to be arrested, fined, or sued.

EDIT: this response wasn't necessarily focussed on US law, so it may not all apply obviously...

There are limits to the amount of copies you are allowed to make, or at least that is what the law in my country (Netherlands) says. It literally says "a few", which is specified as for example 2 or 3, depending on the nature of the article reproduced. For example if you reproduce a music CD then 2 or 3 is viewed as a "reasonable amount".

I don't think there has ever been a case where the fair amount of reproduced Space Marine weapons has been established

But it is allowed in numerous countries (including mine, where downloading is also perfectly legal (not computer games though)) to reproduce stuff as long as it is for your own personal home use only. That and that alone is what is allowed. Obviously no sharing or commercial use allowed whatsoever.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:For reference, check out the US Copyright law section 107 on fair use: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

There are 4 criteria that need to be taken into account to determine if something is fair use:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
I don't think you can claim that making models for playing a game is part of a nonprofit educational purpose.

The text in the link says "including". There isn't a restriction to only commercial nature or nonprofit educational purposes. Those are just two examples.

Nonprofit really is the keyword in most occasions. Miniatures are not very well defined among all the items in the copyright laws. A lot of interpretation is possible.

If someone in the US home-makes a handful of 40K weapons for his own personal use at his house and/or his local game store there is no way that person ever gets in trouble for it, not even in the US.

Grakmar wrote:
I'm sorry, but that isn't accurate. For reference, check out the US Copyright law section 107 on fair use: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Lawyered!

I've clearly been misinformed. I defer to your outstanding link where it is very clear which cases are considered reasonable and by what criteria fair use is judged.

Having grown up with hippy parents who treasured their bootleg tapes, I had developed an incorrect interpretation of Fair Use.

Thanks for setting me straight!

You can make as many photocopies or other reproductions of Van Gogh paintings as you like, and sell them, since all of Van Gogh's oeuvre went in to the public domain 70 years after his death.

That is why there are heaps of new Sherlock Holmes stories being published. Sherlock Holmes is out of copyright and any one can use the characters and stories for whatever they like.

redstripe wrote:It is not illegal to recast your miniatures in the united states. Fair Use laws in the United States -do- contain language about "Personal Use."

You can buy a Van Gogh and make as many photo-copies of that painting as you want.

You can buy a Christina Agulera CD and make as many CD copies of that as you want and you can buy a Space Marine and recast that thing until your brain is addled by resin fumes.

It only becomes illegal when you share what you reproduce and even some forms of sharing are protected (such as using the items in a research or educational environment.)

If you don't own the copyright or have duplication license, you can't recast other people's stuff. Fair Use laws have *NO* provision for copying things instead of buying them.

This is probably true, because you actually own the original, and Van Gogh wasn't smart enough to retain duplication rights when he sold the painting.

These are clearly false. While GW doesn't go for damages, the RIAA sure does. I invite you to make a few thousand copies of CDs, have the result notarized. This would constitute legally-admissable evidence of unauthorized copying that I should able to take to the RIAA to collect a 10% "finders fee". In court, you're guaranteed to lose, based on your own evidence. Based on precedent, the penalty would be potentially in the millions.

No, it's illegal the moment you copy the item without rights. The fact that GW tends not to sue over it, is beside the point. As above, challenge the RIAA, and see where it goes.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

redstripe wrote:It is not illegal to recast your miniatures in the united states. Fair Use laws in the United States -do- contain language about "Personal Use."

You can buy a Van Gogh and make as many photo-copies of that painting as you want.

You can buy a Christina Agulera CD and make as many CD copies of that as you want and you can buy a Space Marine and recast that thing until your brain is addled by resin fumes.

It only becomes illegal when you share what you reproduce and even some forms of sharing are protected (such as using the items in a research or educational environment.)

If you don't own the copyright or have duplication license, you can't recast other people's stuff. Fair Use laws have *NO* provision for copying things instead of buying them.

This is probably true, because you actually own the original, and Van Gogh wasn't smart enough to retain duplication rights when he sold the painting.

These are clearly false. While GW doesn't go for damages, the RIAA sure does. I invite you to make a few thousand copies of CDs, have the result notarized. This would constitute legally-admissable evidence of unauthorized copying that I should able to take to the RIAA to collect a 10% "finders fee". In court, you're guaranteed to lose, based on your own evidence. Based on precedent, the penalty would be potentially in the millions.

No, it's illegal the moment you copy the item without rights. The fact that GW tends not to sue over it, is beside the point. As above, challenge the RIAA, and see where it goes.

This was already struck down with the rise of cassette tapes and VHS in the 80s.

Fair use DOES cover copies for PERSONAL use.

From your example, the RIAA can only sue those users who copy and share music and movies via P2P services. As redstripe said: "It only becomes illegal when you share what you reproduce..." or attempt to illicit monetary gain from said reproductions....

ancientsociety wrote:This was already struck down with the rise of cassette tapes and VHS in the 80s.

Fair use DOES cover copies for PERSONAL use.

From your example, the RIAA can only sue those users who copy and share music and movies via P2P services. As redstripe said: "It only becomes illegal when you share what you reproduce..." or attempt to illicit monetary gain from said reproductions....

I'm afraid you're just as wrong as Redstripe's original post.

The Betamax ruling allowed for time shifting content via recording; subsequent rulings have touched on format-shifting (in the case of MP3 players & CDs), but without clear results. "Personal" use is not a blanket exception to U.S. copyright laws.

The RIAA concentrates on P2P users because they're easiest to find, not because they are the only ones doing anything wrong.

ancientsociety wrote:This was already struck down with the rise of cassette tapes and VHS in the 80s.

Fair use DOES cover copies for PERSONAL use.

From your example, the RIAA can only sue those users who copy and share music and movies via P2P services. As redstripe said: "It only becomes illegal when you share what you reproduce..." or attempt to illicit monetary gain from said reproductions....

As noted, VHS is time-shifting, meaning that you're simply watching the thing later, but not making a copy.

If you think so, put your money where your mouth is, download a few thousand MP3s and send a notarized, registered summary to the RIAA.

You are 100% wrong, and there are RIAA settlements to prove it. But hey, if you doubt me, go ahead and test the RIAA on "personal use". I *dare* you.

If you get the RIAA to say that downloading MP3s is OK for "personal use", I will gladly reimburse you the $10 or $20 it costs you to notarize and mail the letter to the RIAA, upon evidence of RIAA official document sent on RIAA official letterhead.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

ancientsociety wrote:This was already struck down with the rise of cassette tapes and VHS in the 80s.

Fair use DOES cover copies for PERSONAL use.

From your example, the RIAA can only sue those users who copy and share music and movies via P2P services. As redstripe said: "It only becomes illegal when you share what you reproduce..." or attempt to illicit monetary gain from said reproductions....

As noted, VHS is time-shifting, meaning that you're simply watching the thing later, but not making a copy.

If you think so, put your money where your mouth is, download a few thousand MP3s and send a notarized, registered summary to the RIAA.

You are 100% wrong, and there are RIAA settlements to prove it. But hey, if you doubt me, go ahead and test the RIAA on "personal use". I *dare* you.

If you get the RIAA to say that downloading MP3s is OK for "personal use", I will gladly reimburse you the $10 or $20 it costs you to notarize and mail the letter to the RIAA, upon evidence of RIAA official document sent on RIAA official letterhead.

It's a little trickier than this, as there is a difference between downloading and uploading. Basically, if you upload anything, you are in clear violation of copyright law, and people can and will come after you.

But, downloading is still a bit of a gray area. Most P2P networks require people upload as they download, but a pure downloader may be in the clear as they weren't the ones breaking copyright. However, the RIAA may very well come after you, and the legal fees to fight this would financially cripple any one of us.

Does anyone else feel like this thread has somehow moved over to slashdot?

Grakmar wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:If you think so, put your money where your mouth is, download a few thousand MP3s and send a notarized, registered summary to the RIAA.

You are 100% wrong, and there are RIAA settlements to prove it. But hey, if you doubt me, go ahead and test the RIAA on "personal use". I *dare* you.

If you get the RIAA to say that downloading MP3s is OK for "personal use", I will gladly reimburse you the $10 or $20 it costs you to notarize and mail the letter to the RIAA, upon evidence of RIAA official document sent on RIAA official letterhead.

It's a little trickier than this, as there is a difference between downloading and uploading. Basically, if you upload anything, you are in clear violation of copyright law, and people can and will come after you.

But, downloading is still a bit of a gray area. Most P2P networks require people upload as they download, but a pure downloader may be in the clear as they weren't the ones breaking copyright. However, the RIAA may very well come after you, and the legal fees to fight this would financially cripple any one of us.

Yes, uploading will get you bit. Downloading can, too.

Again, anybody who doubts this, go ahead and test the RIAA. I'll gladly reimburse the notary and mailing fees (up to $20) of anybody who gets the RIAA to okay their downloading or copying. All I require is that you send a legally-admissable, notarized letter to the RIAA admitting significant (100s or more) copying (or downloading), and then receive an official OK back on RIAA letterhead.

So are the Kabuki-models miniatures on ebay recasts? I've just bought the Millenium Knight from them.

Also, the miniatures from Kabuki can't be that bad as Raff has painted a lot in his gallery and they all look sweet!

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, uploading will get you bit. Downloading can, too.

Again, anybody who doubts this, go ahead and test the RIAA. I'll gladly reimburse the notary and mailing fees (up to $20) of anybody who gets the RIAA to okay their downloading or copying. All I require is that you send a legally-admissable, notarized letter to the RIAA admitting significant (100s or more) copying (or downloading), and then receive an official OK back on RIAA letterhead.

Well, the guy in the story you quoted wasn't actually sued. He agreed to settle rather than go to court. But, yeah, I looked into this a bit more, and it appears I was wrong about the downloading vs uploading thing. They are both currently illegal in the US and they can both be sued over.

But, what is interesting for any Canadians out there: It does appear downloading is legal in Canada. I'm not totally clear as to why, but it appears there's some sort of tax on blank media that the music industry had put into place years and years ago to cover any duplication. (They thought it would be easier to tax blank tapes slightly than to go after all the bootleggers.) But, now that law is coming back to mean that downloading is legit in Canada. Kinda interesting, eh? Maybe you Canucks know what the RIAA is all aboot.

No, he wasn't sued, he was given the option to settle out of court. Sure, he could have gone to court. At best, he'd have gotten the court to force him to pay treble actual damages (about 25 cents per song, or $500), but he would had to spend $100k to get that result, and he'd be at risk for court-imposed damages of $250+ per song ($500k).

The difference between Canada and Sweden and the US is that the US has Disney writing the laws in favor of the IP holder. Very simple.

Another thing to be greateful at the Yankees for. Thanks a lot for that bs.

You seem as though you think regular Americans actually have some say in our government or laws... You are very sadly misinformed, my friend.

Hmmm JRR Tolkien died 2 September 1973 so in 2044 we can all produce as much LotR merchandising and 'Frodo in space vs Sherlock Holmes' as we want...

I'm just waiting for GW to claim they own the rights to it all a'la Micheal Morcock...

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Hmmm JRR Tolkien died 2 September 1973 so in 2044 we can all produce as much LotR merchandising and 'Frodo in space vs Sherlock Holmes' as we want...

I'm just waiting for GW to claim they own the rights to it all a'la Micheal Morcock...

Except the copyright is held within the Tolkien Estate and Christopher Tolkien has been publishing his fathers works for many years. As long as derived works keep being published with altered fore words etc there will be no Frodo Teabaggins in space.

Its like Banardos and Peter Pan, JM Barrie gave the rights to Barnardos and they had to get another book written and published, based on Peter Pan, to keep the copyright safe, and the money rolling in.