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.

The thread title says it all. There was a discussion going in another thread that I believe was locked before any real headway was made.

1)Somebody had asked a question about recasting for personal use.

2)I believe that recasting for personal use is acceptable and perfectly legal in the US. (personal use meaning that no copy may be given away or sold)

3)Others stated that it is indeed illegal. When I asked for evidence I was told that I should "look it up".

In the US, laws do not grant us rights, but rather place restrictions on perceived rights. The burden of proof in this case falls clearly in the laps of those who argue that recasting for personal use is illegal, not on the persons claiming that it is within their rights. Since laws don't grant permission, and instead restrict freedoms, the person arguing in favor of said restriction should at least know what they are talking about and where to find the law/laws in question. Even a link would suffice.

Also remember that legality is connected with the realities of the legal system. Even if someone can quote you some law that sounds like personal use recasting is illegal, the reality of the situation is quite different.

If you copy something and never, ever distribute it or publicly display it, how in the world can you possibly face penalty for it? The burden of proof is such that it would never, ever make it to court without some evidence. And that evidence only exists when you distribute or display in public.

helium42 wrote:The thread title says it all. There was a discussion going in another thread that I believe was locked before any real headway was made.

1)Somebody had asked a question about recasting for personal use.

2)I believe that recasting for personal use is acceptable and perfectly legal in the US. (personal use meaning that no copy may be given away or sold)

3)Others stated that it is indeed illegal. When I asked for evidence I was told that I should "look it up".

In the US, laws do not grant us rights, but rather place restrictions on perceived rights. The burden of proof in this case falls clearly in the laps of those who argue that recasting for personal use is illegal, not on the persons claiming that it is within their rights. Since laws don't grant permission, and instead restrict freedoms, the person arguing in favor of said restriction should at least know what they are talking about and where to find the law/laws in question. Even a link would suffice.

So...let me get this straight: you disagree with us over the legality of recasting and you're too lazy to look the law up, so rather than accept many of us telling you it's illegal (it's also in GW's legal portion and it's copywritten material-buying their material is agreeing to their rules which deny you the ability to recast. That part of their legal portion is enough to deny rights to recast and US law would honor that) and you want us to do your work for you. I can't even begin to start laughing hard enough. Go buy your models properly. In other words...you should look it up. Don't be lazy and make a thread telling us to do your work for you. I just direct you to GW's legal page-I assume you can navigate their site as it's an easily accessible link, but I'll still get you started: www.games-workshop.com. You may be prompted to put in your country upon first going there.

In the US, laws do not grant us rights, but rather place restrictions on perceived rights.

Well, except for things like the Bill of Rights, a part of the Constitution, which is a foundation of the US legal system.

Title 17 of the US Code.

(a)Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1)literary works;
...
(5)pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

Section 106

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;

(3)to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

Fair Use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. 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.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17

Number 4 is generally the most important factor and it is especially relevant here.

helium42 wrote:I believe that recasting for personal use is acceptable and perfectly legal in the US. (personal use meaning that no copy may be given away or sold)

Your "beliefs" hold no basis in US law.

What you're going with here is Fair Use, which is a oft-misunderstood section of law around these parts. You may read up on it here.

Presuming you are recasting warhams figures for your own games at home with friends, a reasonable assumption, lets apply the relevant tests for a fair use argument:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. 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.

You're not teaching the art of casting in an educational setting, you're recreating 100% of the original work, and you're utterly diminishing the market value of the copyrighted work (i.e you're recasting to avoid buying more). There is no jurisdiction in this country in which you would successfully argue a Fair Use exclusion to your activities should the copyright holder choose to sue you.

To sum up this up before the imminent and inevitable lock on this thread; lets hit the salient points:

1.) Recasting Warhams in the US is not legal;
2.) No lawyer is going to champion an argument on Dakka either way any more than actual doctors get into Wikipedia edit wars;
3.) GWS is not going to sue you if you recast minis in your house and use them with your friends;
4.) Dakka Dakka will (rightfully) shut down any threads which endorse the recasting of copyrighted works that you obviously do not have the right to recast.

I won't get into the moral implications of recasting since that's a whole other issue.

I have read up on Fair Use. My argument is based on the fact that Fair Use is open to interpretation. For example, examine these two parts:

(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Recasting models for my own personal use is not a commercial venture, and the reason that there is anything written at all about nonprofit educational purposes is because those materials are distributed freely to students. A recaster who recasts for personal use is not distributing anything to anybody.

(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I am not diminishing the market in any way if I reproduce something that I have no plans to ever purchase. A court will ask a plaintiff to prove damages. Good luck with that.

I stated in the previous thread that the Fair Use writ is far from black and white and can likely be interpreted differently depending on the judge who would hear a given case.

Everyone's position on this by citing laws is just propaganda. The only thing that matters is the reality on the ground, not some theoretical idea of what the law should mean.

Fair use may indeed be interpreted differently based on a judge, but why would this ever go in front of a judge? If it does, you've done something wrong in terms of evidence available to the plaintiff.

GW is more than willing to spend 10's of thousands of dollars to sue you. They have done so in the past, they will do so in the future. I doubt you have the money to defend yourself in a court of law. My first move would be a court order and search warrant for your domicile, place of work, any storage areas you may rent, and your computers to check for illegally downloaded files, emails from possible purchasers, orders from a 3d printing company etc. Enjoy having everything in your house torn out of place, and hope your computer is returned to you in working order. I'm sure your employer will enjoy his business being searched. After the fact finding is done, you'll have to call out of work to go to court. Then they may ask for an extension, which means you get to put in for another day out of work. And so on, and so on. All of this is legal too, and by the book. Are you willing to go through all of this to recast some toy soldiers?

(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I am not diminishing the market in any way if I reproduce something that I have no plans to ever purchase. A court will ask a plaintiff to prove damages. Good luck with that.


A. By not buying their miniatures, you are taking dollars out of their pockets. B. Can you prove, without a doubt, that you will never ever ever ever sell these figures to anyone else? I doubt they will accept a promise written on nice paper and signed by you.

Copyright is exclusive but there are exceptions (Fair Use) including educational purposes.

Making copies for personal use is unlikely in court to be accepted as educational, especially if you are copying the expensive stuff and making multiple copies.

If GW find out about your copies, they will produce your copies in court and say the originals cost $35 each. If you have made 10 copies the judge will use that as the basis of the claim for losses.

Of course, it's unlikely that GW will ever find out where you live, so you should get away with it.

That does not mean you are right legally or morally, so you should not expect people to agree with you.

helium42 wrote:The thread title says it all. There was a discussion going in another thread that I believe was locked before any real headway was made.

1)Somebody had asked a question about recasting for personal use.

2)I believe that recasting for personal use is acceptable and perfectly legal in the US. (personal use meaning that no copy may be given away or sold)

3)Others stated that it is indeed illegal. When I asked for evidence I was told that I should "look it up".

In the US, laws do not grant us rights, but rather place restrictions on perceived rights. The burden of proof in this case falls clearly in the laps of those who argue that recasting for personal use is illegal, not on the persons claiming that it is within their rights. Since laws don't grant permission, and instead restrict freedoms, the person arguing in favor of said restriction should at least know what they are talking about and where to find the law/laws in question. Even a link would suffice.

Actually the burden of proof is ALWAYS!!!! with the person who makes the claim. I thought I would clarify that.

And since I am making a claim here, I will provide evidence to back up my claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

frozenwastes wrote:Also remember that legality is connected with the realities of the legal system. Even if someone can quote you some law that sounds like personal use recasting is illegal, the reality of the situation is quite different.

If you copy something and never, ever distribute it or publicly display it, how in the world can you possibly face penalty for it? The burden of proof is such that it would never, ever make it to court without some evidence. And that evidence only exists when you distribute or display in public.

Breaking the law doesn't require you to get caught. If you make smack in your basement, never sell it and never use it outside the house, it doesn't mean you're not breaking the law. You still are, you've just not been caught.

Fair Use applies mostly to music, so that people can make backups of albums, which once you own one you have no need to buy another of the same one, therefore making your own backups or copies does not result in a lost sale of said album.

Miniatures are very much not in that category. The ONLY reason someone recasts is to gain something without paying for it.

Fair Use does not apply to your recasts even if you "had no intention of buying more". You recast more so that you don't have to BUY more. That means you are taking sales away from the creator and copyright holder of the work.

Also, since miniatures and their individual parts are copywritten, the owner of said copyright has ALL rights to the manufacture and distribution of said works. If that means they don't want to sell it at all so be it. If they want to give it away for free, they can do that as well. Either way, you cannot legally copy a work of art(which miniatures fall under) without the consent of the copyright holder for that work.

Your beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the legality of this situation.

Now, that said:
Yes I recast. I don't generally post proof of that, nor do I explain how I do it. I also don't sell what I recast, but that is mostly out of laziness to produce more than what I need.

However, I completely understand that by doing so, I am breaking copyright law.

I also speed on the freeway and talk on my phone in the car. All of these are equally illegal, and I understand the inherent risk in doing so.

Quit trying to justify your illegal actions. Be a big boy and accept responsibility for your actions. And be ready to accept the consequences you may suffer as a result of this illegal activity.

Casting for your own benefit is a commercial action. You will be acting against if not the word of he law (it is) but the spirit of It as well.

helium42 wrote:I stated in the previous thread that the Fair Use writ is far from black and white and can likely be interpreted differently depending on the judge who would hear a given case.

I hope that you email GWS and let them know of your willful infringement. After all, you clearly believe you will prevail in court, so I look forward to you setting a solid precedent for the rest of us to use.

You asked for the law, it was provided. If you're now wishing to argue with the answer, you're simply doing an end-run around the other thread being locked, just as countless discussions on this thread were locked before and will be again, unto forevermore, amen. There simply is no new data to add to these conversations.

KGatch113 wrote:

GW is more than willing to spend 10's of thousands of dollars to sue you. They have done so in the past, they will do so in the future. I doubt you have the money to defend yourself in a court of law. My first move would be a court order and search warrant for your domicile, place of work, any storage areas you may rent, and your computers to check for illegally downloaded files, emails from possible purchasers, orders from a 3d printing company etc. Enjoy having everything in your house torn out of place, and hope your computer is returned to you in working order. I'm sure your employer will enjoy his business being searched. After the fact finding is done, you'll have to call out of work to go to court. Then they may ask for an extension, which means you get to put in for another day out of work. And so on, and so on. All of this is legal too, and by the book. Are you willing to go through all of this to recast some toy soldiers?

Would they though? I've always thought it was slightly daft that GW comes down like a giant sack of poo on some guy making 3rd party-parts in his garage, which you need to buy official GW products to even use, but then Russian and Chinese re-casters are producing and selling wantonly for a cheaper price than the original on ebay. And, they seem to be able to do it without fear of reproach.

Regardless of what the law says regarding this issue, TBH I would view it in the same way as copying music onto cassette tapes back in the day. Technically you are not allowed to do it, but in reality it is very difficult to police and almost impossible if you are just using them for your own use. A lick of paint and no-one is going to be any of the wiser. And, I don't think GW would care, the lion's share of their market is for the 11-14 year olds anyway, and the number of people who would go through the bother of setting up their own moulds and making copies (for their own use) is probably the smallest fraction of a percent.

Why would GW use their own lawyer to sue a case?

If you are counterfieting then Trading Standards and the Police will do the legal bit for you.

The reality OP is that you will never be detected whatever you do (see Aerethan's post for proof), but this is wargaming and petty and jealous individuals seem attracted to this hobby like moths to the flame so YMMV.

Pacific wrote:

KGatch113 wrote:

GW is more than willing to spend 10's of thousands of dollars to sue you. They have done so in the past, they will do so in the future. I doubt you have the money to defend yourself in a court of law. My first move would be a court order and search warrant for your domicile, place of work, any storage areas you may rent, and your computers to check for illegally downloaded files, emails from possible purchasers, orders from a 3d printing company etc. Enjoy having everything in your house torn out of place, and hope your computer is returned to you in working order. I'm sure your employer will enjoy his business being searched. After the fact finding is done, you'll have to call out of work to go to court. Then they may ask for an extension, which means you get to put in for another day out of work. And so on, and so on. All of this is legal too, and by the book. Are you willing to go through all of this to recast some toy soldiers?

Would they though? I've always thought it was slightly daft that GW comes down like a giant sack of poo on some guy making 3rd party-parts in his garage, which you need to buy official GW products to even use, but then Russian and Chinese re-casters are producing and selling wantonly for a cheaper price than the original on ebay. And, they seem to be able to do it without fear of reproach.

Regardless of what the law says regarding this issue, TBH I would view it in the same way as copying music onto cassette tapes back in the day. Technically you are not allowed to do it, but in reality it is very difficult to police and almost impossible if you are just using them for your own use. A lick of paint and no-one is going to be any of the wiser. And, I don't think GW would care, the lion's share of their market is for the 11-14 year olds anyway, and the number of people who would go through the bother of setting up their own moulds and making copies (for their own use) is probably the smallest fraction of a percent.

As I stated, they have in the past. I believe some guy in Virginia cost them upwards of 25K. They take this very seriously.

Obviously, they can't do anything to people in Russia or China. So if you wanted to get in to the illegal casting business, that's the place to go.

Pacific wrote:

KGatch113 wrote:

GW is more than willing to spend 10's of thousands of dollars to sue you. They have done so in the past, they will do so in the future. I doubt you have the money to defend yourself in a court of law. My first move would be a court order and search warrant for your domicile, place of work, any storage areas you may rent, and your computers to check for illegally downloaded files, emails from possible purchasers, orders from a 3d printing company etc. Enjoy having everything in your house torn out of place, and hope your computer is returned to you in working order. I'm sure your employer will enjoy his business being searched. After the fact finding is done, you'll have to call out of work to go to court. Then they may ask for an extension, which means you get to put in for another day out of work. And so on, and so on. All of this is legal too, and by the book. Are you willing to go through all of this to recast some toy soldiers?

Would they though? I've always thought it was slightly daft that GW comes down like a giant sack of poo on some guy making 3rd party-parts in his garage, which you need to buy official GW products to even use, but then Russian and Chinese re-casters are producing and selling wantonly for a cheaper price than the original on ebay. And, they seem to be able to do it without fear of reproach.

Regardless of what the law says regarding this issue, TBH I would view it in the same way as copying music onto cassette tapes back in the day. Technically you are not allowed to do it, but in reality it is very difficult to police and almost impossible if you are just using them for your own use. A lick of paint and no-one is going to be any of the wiser. And, I don't think GW would care, the lion's share of their market is for the 11-14 year olds anyway, and the number of people who would go through the bother of setting up their own moulds and making copies (for their own use) is probably the smallest fraction of a percent.

Yes, but you wouldn't normally get people who illegally download music, actually saying they illegally download music on a music website and then not expect them to recieve warnings from the moderation team. In other words this thread is most likely to get locked and you may or may not recieve a message from moderators to keep those kind of comments to yourself.

The OP's question has been answered.

Fair Use does not cover making more of something to save yourself the money of buying more from the manufacturer.

Locking thread.