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.

 Happyjew wrote:
Computron, regarding the thread you asked about. This popped up in "moderators" by the original poster for the linked thread. RITides (who locked it) said the following:

I figured it was tagged as being about recasting based solely on a comment about not wanting to go the forgeworld route. It should have been obvious that this meant not using forgeworld designs at all. The op of that thread stated they had bits from sets that they wanted to use, but wanted advice on how to easily create the bits they didn't have. Once you have converted or modeled such a piece then it makes sense to cast it for multiples - you are of course still in breach of ip laws if you use GW product as the base for your conversion, though I believe even GW cares not for garage hobbyists who aren't trying to make money.

 insaniak wrote:

Computron wrote:
Now can someone please point out where the ip infringement was taking place because I don't see it.

In this case, the discussion was on casting sculpts of space marine parts, which falls in to a bit of a legal grey area. The fact that they are sculpted by the poster makes them his own... but dependong on how closely they mimic GW's own product, can potentially still be an infringement.

When in doubt, Dakka will generally err on the side of caution. The legal bills are cheaper that way.

Seems odd, since Puppetswar, Kromlech, Chapterhouse, Stormcrow, etc can all show and advertise their not-SM-parts completely openly here.

 Azazelx wrote:

Seems odd, since Puppetswar, Kromlech, Chapterhouse, Stormcrow, etc can all show and advertise their not-SM-parts completely openly here.

Not really. Those are all established companies that have taken time and effort (and potentially legal advice) to create enough difference to be able to sell their products. And more importantly, if someone has an issue with those companies, they're not going to come trying to shut Dakka down, they're going to go after those particular companies.

However, the things that actually can become an issue for this site, is if we became known as a place you could come to regularly find links to known illegal or recast materials and/or to find tutorials on how to easily recast models to avoid buying them from the people that own the copyright.

Things that get posted here on Dakka tend to stay around forever, and often end up being the top google result years down the road. So if someone types in 'recasting Space Marines' and the first link that pops up is a thread here on Dakka showing people how to recast SM parts, then *that* is something that can potentially lead a company to get off their butt and look for ways to get this site shut down.

I completely understand yakface's stance on this. I was nearly banned from a GW store several years ago, because I mentioned I had made a press mold off of a 2nd edition SM left hand. Once I explained to the store manager, that I was NOT casting full miniatures nor any part that could currently be ordered he relaxed a bit. My one question that no one can seem to answer (and I am not doing this mind you!) is if I cast a figure that is no longer available through any version of the manufacturer, AND I have ZERO intention of profiting from either the item produced or the mold itself, here the legal recourse?

Being out of production doesn't remove copyright. It's the owning company's decision whether or not to make that product available.

As to the 'legal recourse'... copyright law (at least as I understand it - I'm not an IP lawyer, and they're the only ones who really do) doesn't care whether or not you intend to sell it, although the penalty for an infringement is generally tied to how much it theoretically costs the IP owner... so in cases where you're casting something for personal use, it's extremely unlikely that any company would waste the time trying to take it to court.

Similar but very specific example, where would I stand in a P&M topic, mentioning one-off casting to repair OOP pieces?

I have a very broken IG ship, and the only way to get a second engine is to cast the first and flip it - even Forgeworld went "Sorry. Ehhhh, got some putty?" on the phone when I asked if they had a spare kicking about.
I could just entirely not mention it, it isn't losing me any sleep, but for sake of a "true" progress log I'm curious.

Funnily enough though, GW have shown in official publications how to make press moulds for the purpose of duplicating small pieces like purity seals. But that's probably part of a bygone age, they don't even tell you how to make your own scenery now, just 'buy this kit'.

The press-mould tutorial was one article on the GW US site... and rumours at the time suggested that GW legal weren't at all happy about it.

kb_lock wrote:
The real thing is, GW gets super upset about casting and stuff, and communities that support it get the shaft - far better to be on the safe side, as much as it is heavy handed and rather stifling, than having undue pressure on the admins

Well if they are so upset, they can always lower the prices Right? And I'm not talking about paints and models, their e-books from the Black Library are also fething expensive.
I'm not aware of how recasting works, but I was warned that you may receive a gak model and it's not really worth the risk, but the 70 paunds Thunder Fire canon which is a must for my Ultramarines really gives me second thought for a second hand at least.
We can always play WH with pennies and chess figures, but for some reason we stick to nicely made models.
About laws and copyright.... I imagine a Chinese Theoden telling them this:

I've seen recasts, they aren't worth the trouble.

Also "just lower the price" may be a solution, but you are confusing a fan forum with a games workshop strategy meeting.

E: i am happy to discuss recasting by pm if you want to know why i recommend avoiding them, the point is that the admins don't want or need the discussion here in the open

 Ouze wrote:
It is an unfortunate fact that GW legal is so heavy handed in their approach to protecting their IP.

They are no different to any other company whose product is so closely tied to their IP, Disney and Barbie for example. If you'd spend 30yrs building something, would you be happy for someone else to illegally profit from your hard work? (and don't cite spot the space marine, we all know it was a bad move on gws part, although one that resulted in hugely inflated sales of the book)

Please don't dredge up old threads for no reason like this.