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.

insaniak wrote:

Shepherd23 wrote:If this is the case regarding DVR, TIVO, etc., then why do they exist considering that every single item you would record is going to be illegal?

Because something that records video is not in itself an infringement. It's what you choose to do with it that causes the theoretical issues.

And recording TV isn't universally illegal. I can't speak for other countries, but here in Oz it's legal to record stuff on TV, but you're supposed to only watch it once and then delete it.


It's a completely different issue to making copies of physical sculpts, though. Recording TV, and copying music, movies or books are given specific exemptions from normal Copyright restrictions in some countries. People like to think that this (or the oft-toted US 'Fair Use' clause) gives them the right to copy whatever they want so long as they're not selling it, but it doesn't actually work that way.

It is similar in the US. You can actually tape radio/tv for personal use and be perfectly fine. Anyone heard of Tivo? However reproducing dvd's and cd's can get you in a heap of trouble if you can prove your right to the information in the first place. That being said reproducing things like dvd's and cd's is normally an issue of contract law, not criminal law.

Grakmar wrote:Ah, this thread again. I'm only familiar with US law, so this may change depending on where you live.

1) There is NO protection from copyright law because something is for "personal use". That's a myth. There is a "fair use" exemption, but having it be for personal use is NOT included. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

2) You cannot recast anything without GW's permission. If you do, they can sue you. (I said "can", not that they necessarily will.)

3) Recording something off TV is totally fine and a completely different legal issue. It's called "time shifting" where you record something so that you can watch it at a later date. http://supreme.justia.com/us/464/417/case.html

I like this summary.

More fundamental answer: you're asking for legal advice on a forum dedicated to conversations about toy soldiers. If you really need legal advice, go find an attorney IN YOUR JURISDICTION.

Shepherd23 wrote:Then I am safe on all counts. The US of A isn't that bad after all then.

As a general guideline, free legal advice (especially from non-lawyers) isn't worth the money you spent on it.

I'm surprised at how many people in this thread are actually saying the right answers.

Personal use recasting is very much illegal, but the probability of you being caught and sued over it is little to none.

As long as you are ok with that, recast away! Just understand the risk and potential consequences of it.

insaniak wrote:

Shepherd23 wrote:If this is the case regarding DVR, TIVO, etc., then why do they exist considering that every single item you would record is going to be illegal?

Because something that records video is not in itself an infringement. It's what you choose to do with it that causes the theoretical issues.

And recording TV isn't universally illegal. I can't speak for other countries, but here in Oz it's legal to record stuff on TV, but you're supposed to only watch it once and then delete it.

They even had to change the copyrights act here to allow the 'fair use' of iPods and other mp3 players - as whilst owning the devices was not illegal, Using them to store music files you hadn't downloaded to them from a digital store was. Format shifting is now legal for music and other data. You cannot transfer it to another party by any means.

(Using DVD PLAYERS was also illegal, whilst owning one was not. DVD plays to a buffer, essentially copying the data to a second format which is then played. By the wording of the act, this act that was part of the machine's normal operation, was also illegal.).

Yup, we sure had an ass-backwards set of laws in regards to the hitech digital age.

jbunny wrote:

GamzaTheChaos wrote:As long as you don't start trading the bits for stuff or selling them you should be just fine. just keep it to personal use only. also how are they going to ever find out that 1 person out of billions is recasting a few figures UNLESS IT COMES FROM YOUR MOUTH!!! so do what you like just don't make word of it.
also I doubt any court would take it to full effect of OMG THIS MAN DID A RECAST!! AND HE USED IT FOR PERSONAL USE!!! OMG!!! 1BILLION IN LEGAL FEES TO THAT MAN!

You sir have never heard of Napster.

That's the internet.

can they track a man in his home for the sake of casting models for his own use? lololloo

GamzaTheChaos wrote:

jbunny wrote:

GamzaTheChaos wrote:As long as you don't start trading the bits for stuff or selling them you should be just fine. just keep it to personal use only. also how are they going to ever find out that 1 person out of billions is recasting a few figures UNLESS IT COMES FROM YOUR MOUTH!!! so do what you like just don't make word of it.
also I doubt any court would take it to full effect of OMG THIS MAN DID A RECAST!! AND HE USED IT FOR PERSONAL USE!!! OMG!!! 1BILLION IN LEGAL FEES TO THAT MAN!

You sir have never heard of Napster.

That's the internet.

can they track a man in his home for the sake of casting models for his own use? lololloo

I can see it now, the Model Gestapo.

I don't think GW could win a case against recasting for personal use, anyway, considering that they promoted it in their own magazine.

lord_blackfang wrote:I don't think GW could win a case against recasting for personal use, anyway, considering that they promoted it in their own magazine.

When?

insaniak wrote:

lord_blackfang wrote:I don't think GW could win a case against recasting for personal use, anyway, considering that they promoted it in their own magazine.

When?

They very much could. The clear resin Balrog was cast from the original molds by the company which means it is not a counterfeit recast like what someone would do in their home.

When you own the copyright you can do what you want and totally infringe on your own stuff while cracking down on others who do the same.

When you own the copyright you can do what you want and totally infringe on your own stuff while cracking down on others who do the same.

I am confident that this is not true in most European legal systems. A company's publication in its own "hobby magazine" affects what can be considered as commonly acceptable behavior when it comes to their product and this in turn limits their legal reach against a private persons. It also provides a solid defense based on acting without malice, you might have broken the law but will only be asked politely not to repeat it if its judged to be against common practice. I have not seen the article though, so my comment is not a specific reply to it.

Is there anyone that thinks GW can prosecute a customer for making conversions? It is something they actually state as being illegal.

MakeH wrote:Is there anyone that thinks GW can prosecute a customer for making conversions? It is something they actually state as being illegal.

I think they ask you not to mix their IP with others, so perhaps there's a suggestion that Star Wars and Hello Kitty armies are not right according to them. Possibly. It's not enforceable and I don't think they would ever bother with such an action.

I am confident that this is not true in most European legal systems. A company's publication in its own "hobby magazine" affects what can be considered as commonly acceptable behavior when it comes to their product and this in turn limits their legal reach against a private persons. It also provides a solid defense based on acting without malice, you might have broken the law but will only be asked politely not to repeat it if its judged to be against common practice.

A person can do what they like with their own copyright. I would have thought it was clear that anything appearing within their own hobby magazine has clearly had their permission extended to cover without prejudicing their general copyright which prevents people recasting their products in the home.

After all, with the balrog they used their own moulds to cast, it's wasn't a recast as such but an original casting but with alternative materials. Had someone recast their models and GW showed in White Dwarf with reference to the person recasting at home then that could be taken as endorsement. But that didn't happen.

Short answer: Don't get caught.

Longer answer: you're going to do it anyway, so don't get caught and quit looking for validation on the internet when you feel the need to be a bad person.

I would have thought it was clear that anything appearing within their own hobby magazine has clearly had their permission extended to cover without prejudicing their general copyright which prevents people recasting their products in the home.

I would have thought that everything shown in their (so called) HOBBY magazine clearly waves those rights, not extends them... since the purpose is (used to be) to show examples and give suggestions.

edit: anyway, as (sort of) mentioned earlier, copyright law is mostly about distribution rights... in lame terms, the right to do business with it. Physical stuff you buy from gw is yours and a private person can go very far in what they can do with it without fear of prosecution.

edit2: btw, making conversions is not illegal (at least not in Finland) and that GW would claim such a thing takes away from their credibility.

timetowaste85 wrote:If you are speaking of GW models, it is illegal to do it at all, even if other companies give the ok for personal use only. Check GWs legal rules. If you have a model that needs fixing, I fail to see how recasting will help it.

What are you talking about? GW doesn't have special laws just for their own miniatures. Laws are made by governments not companies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

zinge wrote:Short answer is no you can't. (safe answer) Even for personal use.

But who is going to find out is the real question.

There are no IP police making random inspections

This is basically true in the United States. Recasting for personal really isn't going to get you in any trouble at all it is the sellers that companies go after. But the bottom line is what is ok in America may not be ok in the UK or somewhere else. If you want to recast for personal use then you need to be aware of the law as it applies to you. And even then if you decide to do it you probably shouldn't go around bragging about it.

But the bottom line is what is ok in America may not be ok in the UK or somewhere else. If you want to recast for personal use then you need to be aware of the law as it applies to you. And even then if you decide to do it you probably shouldn't go around bragging about it.

I disagree with most of what has been on this topic, but I can sign this 100%

I can also add, that if you live in Finland, you are allowed to recast "a few copies" for personal, non-commercial, use. There are obviously some added legal twists and exemptions. You are even allowed to use a third party to do it for you, although it should obviously not be a source of income for them.

MakeH wrote:

But the bottom line is what is ok in America may not be ok in the UK or somewhere else. If you want to recast for personal use then you need to be aware of the law as it applies to you. And even then if you decide to do it you probably shouldn't go around bragging about it.

I disagree with most of what has been on this topic, but I can sign this 100%

I can also add, that if you live in Finland, you are allowed to recast "a few copies" for personal, non-commercial, use. There are obviously some added legal twists and exemptions. You are even allowed to use a third party to do it for you, although it should obviously not be a source of income for them.

Finnish copyright law allows the production of a single copy for personal use.

Also it is prohibited to engage a third party to make a copy of a sculptural work, for example, a wargame model.

See Article 12 on Reproduction for private use, of Law No. 404 of July 8, 1961, as last amended by Law No. 365 of April 25, 1997.

It can be found here on the WIPO web site.

http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=1512

ok, main point is that you are allowed to do recasting for personal use.
We can discuss the differences in our posts in more depth if you feel it to be necessary. I did not know that GW models are sculptures for example (are they really? Is molding sculpting?), also your "single copy" quote from the text you linked is "single copies" and if translated from the Finnish text it is "a few copies". So all in all, I dont know where to go from here

But I think submerging into that is OT since the point I was trying to make is; recasts are most definitely not illegal.
A secondary point is, that GW policy is most likely more strict than EU-law, making it more of a scare tactic than anything else.

Edit:

But I think submerging into that is OT since the point I was trying to make is; recasts are most definitely not illegal.

+ by default (as most people seem to suggest.

Recasting is illegal. "I want more model but I don't want to pay for them" is not personal use anywhere. People distort personal use to mean everything and it does not.

nkelsch wrote:Recasting is illegal. "I want more model but I don't want to pay for them" is not personal use anywhere. People distort personal use to mean everything and it does not.

Im sorry, I dont follow. Finnish law states that copying certain items is legal to a point "for private use", what exactly makes recasting illegal for me?
I have studied competition law, but I am most certainly not a lawyer so I dont mind being put right. But since this matter interest me and I put some effort into checking some general stuff I would like to hear more about this statement before accepting it as the truth.

Well of course I can't read Finnish so have to depend on the English version.

It would be interesting to know if a case has ever reached court in which the amount of "a few" was quantified.

Kilkrazy wrote:It would be interesting to know if a case has ever reached court in which the amount of "a few" was quantified.

The Civil Law system in Finland does not rely on precedences as heavily as many Common Law systems do; using "measurements" like "a few" is not as uncommon as one might think since cases are gone through on a case-to-case basis.

BUT, why get stuck on this since the point I want to make is that recasting, without permission from GW, is not always illegal. Oh btw, I have never recast anything in my life and dont intend to do so. In that sense I have no personal investment in this case.

Has anyone actually had someone bust down their door and inspect their models for recasts?

Is there a device that can detect recast parts once painted,etc.?

Most events I have been to the event staff have far less powers of observation then people are suggesting here.

So what is the fear exactly?

If you do it (recast for personal use) then maybe just shut up about it and no one will be the wiser huh?

MakeH wrote: I did not know that GW models are sculptures for example (are they really? Is molding sculpting?)

Yep. Bronze (and many other metal) sculptures are cast. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_sculpture

MakeH wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Recasting is illegal. "I want more model but I don't want to pay for them" is not personal use anywhere. People distort personal use to mean everything and it does not.

Im sorry, I dont follow. Finnish law states that copying certain items is legal to a point "for private use", what exactly makes recasting illegal for me?
I have studied competition law, but I am most certainly not a lawyer so I dont mind being put right. But since this matter interest me and I put some effort into checking some general stuff I would like to hear more about this statement before accepting it as the truth.

How you use the recasts impact if they are legal. Wargaming is not covered under fair use, personal use or private use. People have distorted versions of those terms with very narrow legal definitions.

"I want more of this model without paying for it" is not personal use anywhere.

Im sorry, I am not familiar with that term so I looked it up on wikipedia:

The term fair use originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

A quick read suggests it is an US thing

I am still under the impression that recasting should not be simply stated as being "illegal"

MakeH wrote:Im sorry, I am not familiar with that term so I looked it up on wikipedia:

The term fair use originated in the United States. A similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

A quick read suggests it is an US thing

I am still under the impression that recasting should not be simply stated as being "illegal"

And yet it is. GW would sue just as much in Finland as the UK or USA. Be under whatever impression you want, even if it's the wrong one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Worglock wrote:Short answer: Don't get caught.

Longer answer: you're going to do it anyway, so don't get caught and quit looking for validation on the internet when you feel the need to be a bad person.

you are just an angry mean spirited person. Haven't seen a polite post from you yet.

timetowaste85 wrote:If you are speaking of GW models, it is illegal to do it at all, even if other companies give the ok for personal use only.

Do you really think that GW have the power to declare something illegal?

Scott-S6 wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:If you are speaking of GW models, it is illegal to do it at all, even if other companies give the ok for personal use only.

Do you really think that GW have the power to declare something illegal?

I think he's saying that while some companies may be ok with it and give permission, GW does not, has not and will not give permission for recasting of their products. The few times it has shown up in WD was with their permission, and in most cases was done by GW employees.

As much as I recast, I am fine with GW's stance on the practice as I understand not wanting people to rip off IP. Where I get dicey is when they discontinue models that people loved and replace them with a monkey faced pajama party that no one asked for.

And yet it is. GW would sue just as much in Finland as the UK or USA. Be under whatever impression you want, even if it's the wrong one.

I find this topic interesting and I would value if you gave me a bit more than this. As it is, I actually tried to check the actual copyright law and found it to be legal. I asked a lawyer about it, the on-the-spot "ruling" was that I am correct but he is not specialized in competition law.

A third party checked the ruling from an English translation and came to the conclusion that a recast is indeed legal.

Again, I dont know what else I should say to convince the majority of the contributors that recasts should not be simply labeled "illegal". GW does not set laws...