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.

matphat wrote:"We'll be able to print food for hungry people. We'll be able to share not only a recipe, but the full meal. "

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

No, it's totally legit.

(I assume hungry people can survive on plastic shaped like real food.)

matphat wrote:"We'll be able to print food for hungry people. We'll be able to share not only a recipe, but the full meal. "

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

That got spoiled a while ago, bro.

Mmmmmmm! Plastic for dinner again!

That's the stupidest thing I've ever read... since i don't read aloud. lol

Why is GW worried about people printing horribly stupid looking things to represent their models? people have been doing this with cardboard for decades.

daedalus wrote:

biccat wrote:

daedalus wrote:There is something so utterly appalling to me about the very concept of an 'illegal shape'.

Do you really find it that appalling that a copyright can be applied to a sculptural work, or a digital representation of that work?

Or is this an extension of a distate for copyright law in general?

Frankly? Mostly the latter, though, given that the traditional method of famous artists developing their talents by copying the established works of the time, it's a little hypocritical.

That's allowed under copyright law, so no hypocrisy there.

daedalus wrote:At any rate, I'd feel better about it were copyright not getting extended every time Micky Mouse gets within 10 years of public domain.

I agree with you about Micky Mouse.

Really there are three main reasons for wanting to 3D print files at home.

1. If it's cheaper than buying the original parts. This is the obvious attraction of piracy.
2. To design and print your own unique stuff.
3. Just out of curiosity for the technology.

Going by my experience of 2D paper printing, it will probably end up more expensive and lower quality than professionally printed stuff. You should see the rate my daughter goes through ink cartridges.

matphat wrote:"We'll be able to print food for hungry people. We'll be able to share not only a recipe, but the full meal. "

That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

3d printers have already been used to print organic material for organ transplants.

Maybe the "stupidest thing I have ever heard" problem is on your end.

They have been used to print replacement "bones".

It's a big step from that to a functioning organ, but it could happen, theoretically. By the time we get that far it will be "The Diamond Age".

You still need to transport base material, of course.

Kilkrazy wrote:They have been used to print replacement "bones".

It's a big step from that to a functioning organ, but it could happen, theoretically. By the time we get that far it will be "The Diamond Age".

You still need to transport base material, of course.

Actually, bioprinting has been used to make organic scaffolding to help hold transplanted organs, functional blood vessels, and skin cells. Additionally, the field of artificially grown meat is becoming quite developed. I can't say if 3d printing food will be practical or not, but it is definitely possible.

If someone scans a GW model (say a Dreadnaught) and prints another copy (an exact replica) then is that not infringing on copyright? Its exactly the same.

Now, what if the person uploads the schematic to a piracy website?

The copy would be an infringement, but the 3d plans may not be.

Take song lyrics: if you use someone else's lyrics in your song, that is infringement(after a certain point). But posting those lyrics in written form on the internet isn't. It is a digital format of the product that doesn't compete with or infringe upon the original.

So I'd say there is no recourse on people making and giving away scans of GW items, it's the printing itself that is illegal.

Just like I could likely get away with making molds of GW parts, and just sell the molds. As long as I don't cast parts in it, I haven't copied the original.

As some one who owns a 3d printer I've naturally been looking into 3d scans as a side project. The issue can be even more blurry then it is presented here. I think it's generally accepted that posting pictures of one of your models is perfectly alright. With current technology, which is admittedly in its infancy, one can take a gallery of around 50 pictures of 3d shape and generate a printable model from them. Should sites like this that let user post pictures of their models be blamed if people make copies of them? It's technology which is approaching 'user friendly' status over the next decade or so and needs to be planned for by companies like GW.

Aerethan wrote:The copy would be an infringement, but the 3d plans may not be.

Take song lyrics: if you use someone else's lyrics in your song, that is infringement(after a certain point). But posting those lyrics in written form on the internet isn't. It is a digital format of the product that doesn't compete with or infringe upon the original.

So I'd say there is no recourse on people making and giving away scans of GW items, it's the printing itself that is illegal.

Just like I could likely get away with making molds of GW parts, and just sell the molds. As long as I don't cast parts in it, I haven't copied the original.

None of this is true.

Please expand nk, citations and a example of your expertise would be great.

Making molds of copyrighted materials and selling the molds is still infringement and is not legal... But if you think it is, knock yourself out. When you are in court feel free to say "a guy on the Internet said I could."

Making a 3D model of a completed model is probably not the way to go. Making a 3D model of a SPRUE, however, is probably a lot easier, so long as the printer is good enough quality and it prints a material that can be worked with. I can also see benefits in being allowed to custom design the contents of the sprue that are being printed- extra meltaguns or power weapons, or perhaps things from other sprues. The market is already there, but it's restricted to buying custom bits with limited stock. Being able to print your own custom stock would be... words cannot describe.

I said I could likely get away with it, didn't say it was legal.

And the only time you end up in court that I've seen for this is if you say no to the C&D letter that GW may send your way if you get caught.

Copyright is becoming a bit of an anachronism with the advent of the information age. How do you stop file sharing when its backbone is made up of movable servers and dispersed uploaders and downloading peers? The answer is simply that as with the war on drugs stopping it completely is impossible and even just attempting to stem the tide is so costly and manpower intensive as to be a futile effort.

The fact of the matter is that GW can't win this fight by throwing money at it and trying to sue anonymous people on the internet. Suing or trying to take legal action against a website has already shown to be spotty if it's hosted outside of a country interested in stemming piracy. After all, TPB has survived many attempts to have it taken down and still hasn't given an inch.

People need to understand that a capitalist society based on owning ideas and expecting a constantly growing market isn't sustainable or even desirable. I'm not saying that I know the better answer, but increasing levels of automation are already costing jobs and with ever increasing technology we could see robots more and more outside of the factory doing simple tasks like paving roads and laying sidewalks. Once that sort of thing hits so many people will be out of work that we'll have to rethink things anyway.

----

On a side note bones and other tissue has been grown in the lab and there is a lot of research going into artificial meat as well as reprocessing waste into consumable food. Thus I don't see the idea of 'printing' food as that far fetched, especially if it takes less land use than ranching or other forms of commercial farming. I do however think we're a fairly long way off from seeing vat grown meat next to a cut of beef in the grocery store.

nkelsch wrote:Making molds of copyrighted materials and selling the molds is still infringement and is not legal... But if you think it is, knock yourself out. When you are in court feel free to say "a guy on the Internet said I could."

Citations, please. There's no point to making an argument if you're not going to back it up. Citations or you're wrong.

nkelsch wrote:Making molds of copyrighted materials and selling the molds is still infringement and is not legal... But if you think it is, knock yourself out. When you are in court feel free to say "a guy on the Internet said I could."

I'm no expert in law, so I don't even know how to look this up.

But since you're such an expert why don't you give me a citation.

Copyright Law of the United States
Chapter 13: Protection of Original Designs
§ 1301 · Designs protected2
(a) Designs Protected.—
(1) In general.—The designer or other owner of an original design of a
useful article which makes the article attractive or distinctive in appearance
to the purchasing or using public may secure the protection provided by this
chapter upon complying with and subject to this chapter.
(2) Vessel features.—The design of a vessel hull, deck, or combination
of a hull and deck, including a plug or mold, is subject to protection under
this chapter, notwithstanding section 1302(4).
(3) Exceptions.—Department of Defense rights in a registered design under
this chapter, including the right to build to such registered design, shall be
determined solely by operation of section 2320 of title 10 or by the instrument
under which the design was developed for the United States Government.
(b) Definitions.—For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms have
the following meanings:
(1) A design is “original” if it is the result of the designer’s creative endeavor
that provides a distinguishable variation over prior work pertaining to similar
articles which is more than merely trivial and has not been copied from
another source.
(2) A “useful article” is a vessel hull or deck, including a plug or mold, which
in normal use has an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray
the appearance of the article or to convey information. An article which normally
is part of a useful article shall be deemed to be a useful article.
(3) A “vessel” is a craft—
(A) that is designed and capable of independently steering a course on
or through water through its own means of propulsion; and
(B) that is designed and capable of carrying and transporting one or
more passengers.
(4) A ‘hull’ is the exterior frame or body of a vessel, exclusive of the deck,
superstructure, masts, sails, yards, rigging, hardware, fixtures, and other
attachments.
(5) A “plug” means a device or model used to make a mold for the purpose
of exact duplication, regardless of whether the device or model has an intrinsic
utilitarian function that is not only to portray the appearance of the product
or to convey information.
(6) A “mold” means a matrix or form in which a substance for material
is used, regardless of whether the matrix or form has an intrinsic utilitarian
function that is not only to portray the appearance of the product or to convey
information.

Copyright Law of the United Kingdom

Artistic works

(1)In this Part “artistic work” means—

(a)a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage, irrespective of artistic quality,

(b)a work of architecture being a building or a model for a building, or

(c)a work of artistic craftsmanship.

(2)In this Part—

* “building” includes any fixed structure, and a part of a building or fixed structure;
* “graphic work” includes—

(a)any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, and

(b)any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work;

* “photograph” means a recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film;
* “sculpture” includes a cast or model made for purposes of sculpture.

Duration of copyright in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works.

(1)The following provisions have effect with respect to the duration of copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work.

(2)Copyright expires at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the author dies, subject as follows.

(3)If the work is of unknown authorship, copyright expires—

(a)at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or

(b)if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available,

subject as follows.

(4)Subsection (2) applies if the identity of the author becomes known before the end of the period specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3).

(5)For the purposes of subsection (3) making available to the public includes—

(a)in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work—

(i)performance in public, or

[F2(ii)communication to the public;]

(b)in the case of an artistic work—

(i)exhibition in public,

(ii)a film including the work being shown in public, or

[F3(iii)communication to the public;]

but in determining generally for the purposes of that subsection whether a work has been made available to the public no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.

(6)Where the country of origin of the work is not an EEA state and the author of the work is not a national of an EEA state, the duration of copyright is that to which the work is entitled in the country of origin, provided that does not exceed the period which would apply under subsections (2) to (5).

(7)If the work is computer-generated the above provisions do not apply and copyright expires at the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made.

(8)The provisions of this section are adapted as follows in relation to a work of joint authorship—

(a)the reference in subsection (2) to the death of the author shall be construed—

(i)if the identity of all the authors is known, as a reference to the death of the last of them to die, and

(ii)if the identity of one or more of the authors is known and the identity of one or more others is not, as a reference to the death of the last whose identity is known;

(b)the reference in subsection (4) to the identity of the author becoming known shall be construed as a reference to the identity of any of the authors becoming known;

(c)the reference in subsection (6) to the author not being a national of an EEA state shall be construed as a reference to none of the authors being a national of an EEA state.

(9)This section does not apply to Crown copyright or Parliamentary copyright (see sections 163 to [F4166D]) or to copyright which subsists by virtue of section 168 (copyright of certain international organisations).]

The acts restricted by copyright in a work

(1)The owner of the copyright in a work has, in accordance with the following provisions of this Chapter, the exclusive right to do the following acts in the United Kingdom—

(a)to copy the work (see section 17);

(b)to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);

[F1(ba)to rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A);]

(c)to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);

[F2(d)to communicate the work to the public (see section 20);]

(e)to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21);

and those acts are referred to in this Part as the “acts restricted by the copyright”.

(2)Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner does, or authorises another to do, any of the acts restricted by the copyright.

(3)References in this Part to the doing of an act restricted by the copyright in a work are to the doing of it—

(a)in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it, and

(b)either directly or indirectly;

and it is immaterial whether any intervening acts themselves infringe copyright.

(4)This Chapter has effect subject to—

(a)the provisions of Chapter III (acts permitted in relation to copyright works), and

(b)the provisions of Chapter VII (provisions with respect to copyright licensing).

Infringement by issue of copies to the public

(1)The issue to the public of copies of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work.

[F1(2)References in this Part to the issue to the public of copies of a work are to—

(a)the act of putting into circulation in the EEA copies not previously put into circulation in the EEA by or with the consent of the copyright owner, or

(b)the act of putting into circulation outside the EEA copies not previously put into circulation in the EEA or elsewhere.

(3)References in this Part to the issue to the public of copies of a work do not include—

(a)any subsequent distribution, sale, hiring or loan of copies previously put into circulation (but see section 18A: infringement by rental or lending), or

(b)any subsequent importation of such copies into the United Kingdom or another EEA state,

except so far as paragraph (a) of subsection (2) applies to putting into circulation in the EEA copies previously put into circulation outside the EEA.]

[F2(4)References in this Part to the issue of copies of a work include the issue of the original.]

Secondary infringement: providing means for making infringing copies

(1)Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who, without the licence of the copyright owner—

(a)makes,

(b)imports into the United Kingdom,

(c)possesses in the course of a business, or

(d)sells or lets for hire, or offers or exposes for sale or hire,

an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of that work, knowing or having reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies.

(2)Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner transmits the work by means of a telecommunications system (otherwise than by [F1communication to the public]), knowing or having reason to believe that infringing copies of the work will be made by means of the reception of the transmission in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

Infringement of copyright by copying

(1)The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to copying and copies shall be construed as follows.

(2)Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.

This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.

(3)In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work.

(4)Copying in relation to a film [F1or broadcast] includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial part of any image forming part of the film [F1or broadcast].

(5)Copying in relation to the typographical arrangement of a published edition means making a facsimile copy of the arrangement.

(6)Copying in relation to any description of work includes the making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other use of the work.



BOOM. Lawyered. Any questions?

had a guy at the LGS who used to make moldsof his minis and cast plaster replicas. we found out when he dropped a rhino, and it was smashed to smithereens.

Did the Games Workshop FBI Strike Team instantly burst in and shoot his dog while arresting him?

Emerett wrote:Did the Games Workshop FBI Strike Team instantly burst in and shoot his dog while arresting him?

No the Thought Police did

The basic issue is that piracy always will exist. As long as there is an anonymous internet account, that will occur. People will OPEN SOURCE pirated goods and projects. Its not going to not occur,.

Rather than trying to shut down minis as they emerge, games workshop should be trying to integrate 3d printing into the hobby. Perhaps charging a fee for copies of the schematics, or perhaps have a subscription to use game workshop blueprints.

I know a few people who would go that method.

You can cite all the copyright laws you want, some people will still pirate, and not get caught. The rewards are greater than the risk at this stage, especially when 3d printing is still so young.

Doctadeth wrote:Rather than trying to shut down minis as they emerge, games workshop should be trying to integrate 3d printing into the hobby. Perhaps charging a fee for copies of the schematics, or perhaps have a subscription to use game workshop blueprints.

Why wouldn't people simply pirate the schematics or blueprints?

GW is a company that exists because of copyright law. They wouldn't exist as a company if pirating their products were easy.

Nocturn wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Making molds of copyrighted materials and selling the molds is still infringement and is not legal... But if you think it is, knock yourself out. When you are in court feel free to say "a guy on the Internet said I could."

Citations, please. There's no point to making an argument if you're not going to back it up. Citations or you're wrong.

Lern2google or read the hundreds of threads about piracy and copyright infringement. Making molds of copyrighted material is infringement as the molds are not only derivative works but are means for redistribution which is also illegal. They infringe both on the model itself and the copyrights of the GW mold which is copyrighted itself.

Yes, people who make molds have the copyright on their mold as well! If you duplicate the mold by casting a mold of an object produced by the mold, it is still derivative works and you are infringing and the copyright holder has control.

Go check out Hirst molds legal page. If you recast the items that comes out of his molds and make a new mold, he still owns the copyrights. So does GW and anyone who makes molds.

I know some of you guys are frothing at the mouth to get away with hundreds of free models and have no problems with piracy and destroying copyrights because you believe in the free exchange of other people's ideas, but being purposefully dence by saying piracy and copyright infringement is legal until you are spoonfed a link to google is absurdity.

Also:

Nocturn wrote:Citations, please. There's no point to making an argument if you're not going to back it up. Citations or you're wrong.

A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir., 2001).
Cable/Home Communication Corp. v. Network Productions, Inc., 902 F. 2d 829, (11th Cir., 1990).
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc. 749 F.2d 154 (3rd Cir., 1984).
Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management., Inc., 443 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir., 1971).

People need to understand that a capitalist society based on owning ideas and expecting a constantly growing market isn't sustainable or even desirable. I'm not saying that I know the better answer, but increasing levels of automation are already costing jobs and with ever increasing technology we could see robots more and more outside of the factory doing simple tasks like paving roads and laying sidewalks. Once that sort of thing hits so many people will be out of work that we'll have to rethink things anyway.

But the problem is, the supposed counter to piracy requires money. How can companies like GW pay for counter-piracy measures (such as further improving models/implementing and maintaining a schematics system etc) when people will be able to easily print out high-quality copies of the models? (These systems need money)

Its a downwards spiral unless something is done. We need a controlled internet.

So Biccat, rather than distributing their schematics in a fashion that would mean that people would have exact copies at a price, which would ALSO dissuade people from pirating because if leaks occur, GW would have the people who bought that product within that timeframe.

Essentially what this boils down to is that piracy/theft is always going to occur, especially when the product is very highly priced, and if cheaper substitutes are available, people will use them.

So it is either GW sanctioned piracy which can have quite a bit of regulation, or straight out piracy, which denudes GW of most product.

Even if GW just keep suing, people will keep pirating, it is inevitable. You can cite whatever laws or rights you want. Piracy is always going to happen, like those movie pirates down at the penny shop.

So it is either GW sanctioned piracy which can have quite a bit of regulation

Where does the money come for this? and how do you make the schematics traceable...