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.
Howard A Treesong wrote:Could be considered a bit naughty though because, if I'm right, they are selling you something different to that pictured. Under UK law at least, that could be construed as misrepresentation of the product.
The area where this was shown is clearly not their catalogue of items for sale though. It's not like it's the box cover art.
It's in the shop section of their website.
It's not visible anywhere in the shop. It may be hosted in the same folder as the shop images but there is no link to it anywhere in the sales area. The picture was posted on the blog a few days ago.
deejaybainbridge wrote:But every GW box says contents subject to change or may vary from pictures shown. Basic get out clause. If not they would need to be assembled and painted.
The retailer still has to be careful. Yes you have to assemble the model but they have to be careful not to mislead the customer by picturing something that can't be made from the contents of the box (paint and glue accepted). 'Basic get out clauses' don't always work, you still can't mislead the customer. Just because they use a certain phrase doesn't mean they are in the clear just like some of the nonsense statements in the IP section of their website are not really binding on the customer. What they say and what is legal don't always match up as is pretty common in business.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/09 15:11:35
The US Laws may state that personal use casting is okay, but the point is that GW say in their legal blab on the website that it is not.
The OP has pointed out the inconsistency with GW's IP statement and their rag, which seems fair enough.
FWIW Don't give a monkey's if the guy recast them.
Aerethan wrote:And it doesn't matter if it's personal use or sold, recasting is still illegal.
Really? Not to drag this thread off-topic, but I think this statement is incorrect... there is no law that I know of (in the U.S., anyway) that prevents recasting for personal use. Same with making a copy of a DVD/game, or recording it off TV... fine for personal use, NOT fine to sell.
17 USC 501.
If you really want to go into this again, I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread so as not to derail this one.
Making copies for "personal use" is illegal.
Platuan4th wrote:US law allows recasting for personal use.
No, it doesn't.*
*Unless you can make a good case for Fair Use. You probably can't.
Aerethan wrote:And it doesn't matter if it's personal use or sold, recasting is still illegal.
Really? Not to drag this thread off-topic, but I think this statement is incorrect... there is no law that I know of (in the U.S., anyway) that prevents recasting for personal use. Same with making a copy of a DVD/game, or recording it off TV... fine for personal use, NOT fine to sell.
17 USC 501.
If you really want to go into this again, I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread so as not to derail this one.
Making copies for "personal use" is illegal.
Platuan4th wrote:US law allows recasting for personal use.
No, it doesn't.*
*Unless you can make a good case for Fair Use. You probably can't.
I'm reading over 17 USC 501 and it continues to mention secondary transmission. Referring to 17 USC 506, it specifically mentions criminalization as :
"(1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed— (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; (B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or (C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution. "
"(2) Evidence.— For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright. "
Also, 107, regarding fair use:
"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; (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; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "
However, 106 DOES state: "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: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; "
Honestly, I can see how a court could rule both ways.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2011/11/09 16:18:16
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
Platuan4th wrote:I'm reading over 17 USC 501 and it continues to mention secondary transmission. Referring to 17 USC 506, it specifically mentions criminalization as :
"(1) In general.— Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed—
(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution. "
"(2) Evidence.— For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement of a copyright. "
Also, 107, regarding fair use:
"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;
(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; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "
If you're really interested in having this discussion, please start a new thread. This one is about ring pops.
Great, now I need to go to the grocery store and buy a ring pop because that image has birthed a craving.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/09 16:30:13
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
And even more, "just so you know":
That wasn't the 'Studio Army' Monolith.
It was painted by a Studio member (I want to say Darren Latham), but the Studio army was done in the green that you see in the catalog picture. If it indeed was Latham's, he painted his crystals with OSL.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also: angle really does play a factor in this case. When you look at it from the sides, but not above--you won't notice the gap--especially if you strategically position it so the join is lined up with the two arches overhead because you won't ever see it except from above then.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/09 16:39:38
Aerethan wrote:They both appear to be 1:1 recasts in red clear resin.
And it doesn't matter if it's personal use or sold, recasting is still illegal.
US law allows recasting for personal use.
This is not true at all. And people also like to have wishy washy definitions of what constitutes personal use which basically includes everything making any and all recasts legal... which is not true.
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA."
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The US Laws may state that personal use casting is okay, but the point is that GW say in their legal blab on the website that it is not.
The OP has pointed out the inconsistency with GW's IP statement and their rag, which seems fair enough.
FWIW Don't give a monkey's if the guy recast them.
I think it would be wise to get the opinion of a copyright lawyer with regards to the US law on recasting. That's off the topic, however.
The key point is that GW are allowed to give permission for recasting of their own stuff. It's their copyright so they can do that. In other words, if someone recasts a piece in clear resin and GW accept it, then that piece is a legal piece.
Aerethan wrote:They both appear to be 1:1 recasts in red clear resin.
And it doesn't matter if it's personal use or sold, recasting is still illegal.
It does matter though whether or not it was done with the permission of the copyright owner, as was the case with the translucent Balrog. Although as I mentioned before, that wasn't technically a 'recast' as it was done in the actual production mould in the factory.
GW showing a picture of someone with cast parts doesn't mean that they are ignoring copyright laws. They're the copyright owners. They have the right to decide whether or not to allow it.
Aerethan wrote:They both appear to be 1:1 recasts in red clear resin.
And it doesn't matter if it's personal use or sold, recasting is still illegal.
And yet you make recasts and have even posted pictures of them on Dakka....
I never said I didn't, however I don't post pics of that stuff on dakka because of their rules on IP.
And no, personal use recasting is not legal. This isn't making a backup of his parts in case they break, this is making a reproduction to use IN PLACE of the original.
And for those claiming it's the same as making a cd, it isn't. Music copies have their own specific law that allows for backups
Aerethan wrote:They both appear to be 1:1 recasts in red clear resin.
And it doesn't matter if it's personal use or sold, recasting is still illegal.
It does matter though whether or not it was done with the permission of the copyright owner, as was the case with the translucent Balrog. Although as I mentioned before, that wasn't technically a 'recast' as it was done in the actual production mould in the factory.
GW showing a picture of someone with cast parts doesn't mean that they are ignoring copyright laws. They're the copyright owners. They have the right to decide whether or not to allow it.
I will agree that since GW is showing that they are giving permission for such work to exist in that particular instance. That idea completely skipped my mind.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/09 20:14:25
"Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! ... It’s become the promotions department of a toy company." -- Rick Priestly
Can you prove those are recasts? They look legit to me. That was the entire point of that post. You can't say they are, or aren't recasts, which was the point being made to the OP. Way to stalk though, I had completely forgotten that thread.
"Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! ... It’s become the promotions department of a toy company." -- Rick Priestly
Aerethan wrote:Can you prove those are recasts? They look legit to me. That was the entire point of that post. You can't say they are, or aren't recasts, which was the point being made to the OP. Way to stalk though, I had completely forgotten that thread.
What needs proving when you say...
Making replicas of a copyrighted work without expressed written consent is illegal. I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it, as I do it myself.
Might as well start posting pics of my own recasts, then describe how I did it.
As an active member who recasts...
I think it's pretty clear cut that you recast stuff.
I don't know why you get a bee in your bonnet about IP, it's pretty tiresome. Being called on your past comments is not 'stalking', that's what the search function is for. It's pretty difficult to understand what your view is. You rag on about IP and illegal recasting, but openly talk about your own efforts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/11/09 21:11:58
Ok, the whole point in that pic was to show the OP that once painted, a recast can't be singled out and thus he would be able to show his work.
Yes I recast. No I don't show pics of it where you can tell it's a recast.
In this thread, I simply found it funny that GW was showing off work that involved recasting when they are so against it.
And, as was always the case, I'm not saying that people should or shouldn't recast, but they should be aware that unless they have the copyright owners permission, ALL recasts, whether personal or commercial, are illegal. Just like speeding on the freeway or not stopping 100% at a stop sign.
"Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! ... It’s become the promotions department of a toy company." -- Rick Priestly
It is legal in Canada however, I do not know about the US specifically. It may also be legal in other countries. The point is, if you are doing it for personal use and not for profit, in many nations it is not against the law.
In the case of re-sellers who either scam fellow hobbyists on sites like Dakka or even the con-artists who list on Ebay that GW seems to do nothing about. There is an abundance of Forge World for 60% of the price coming out of Russia and Poland right now on Ebay, it's obvious when an individual has over 50 Contemptor Dreadnoughts listed in his store and has sold over 20...
Point is, if you're doing it for yourself and to enhance your army, there isn't a huge moral issue. If you're doing it to make a profit, you are indeed infringing upon a copyright issue without a doubt.
Casting different color rods? Not really a big deal....
To me there is no moral dilemma. Not all laws are made for moral reasons. There is nothing amoral about speeding on the freeway, yet it will still land you a hefty fine.
Morals are subjective to each person.
"Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! ... It’s become the promotions department of a toy company." -- Rick Priestly
Aerethan wrote:And, as was always the case, I'm not saying that people should or shouldn't recast, but they should be aware that unless they have the copyright owners permission, ALL recasts, whether personal or commercial, are illegal. Just like speeding on the freeway or not stopping 100% at a stop sign.
Isn't recasting actually copyright infringement and therefore a civil offence not a criminal one? So they aren't just alike.
I'll grant you that, yes copyright infringement and any lawsuits involving it are civil suits. The cops could care less if you recast.
The point stands that both are still illegal, and if anything the penalties for infringement are far worse than those of speeding.
"Bryan always said that if the studio ever had to mix with the manufacturing and sales part of the business it would destroy the studio. And I have to say – he wasn’t wrong there! ... It’s become the promotions department of a toy company." -- Rick Priestly
31,600 points
38750 points before upgrades
