Sean_OBrien wrote:
But the reality is that toys, pieces for a game are utilitarian first and artistic second. For many years, it was common practice for games to ship with cardboard counters instead of miniatures. That is the first purpose. Miniatures were marketed later on to add some level of aesthetic appeal to those counters and markers.

For a company like GW specifically, it could be argued quite easily that were it not for the game and toy aspects...they would not exist, or at least not exist to the extent that they do now. The game is what sells the product first and foremost. It determines if a figure will be sculpted with a rifle, or a pistol and sword. Whether it will be wearing armor or carrying grenades. All of those point to the importance of the game over the aesthetic value.

Now, as the judge noted, if they look bad or didn't look like the fictional figures which they might be intended to represent...then they would loose some commercial value, but that is secondary to their primary use as pieces to play a game with.

The purpose really isn't a question of tool versus not a tool...rather the primary use and any secondary appreciation of an object for aestethetic reasons. Clearly toy soldiers have a primary use of being played with. Some people will collect them and never play with them...but that isn't their primary use.

Other companies who may do similiar work will however end up with a similiar product that has a primary use that is in fact to be looked at. Andrea Miniatures for example. The difference can be seen both in the way that they market their goods as well as to some extent the design and manufacturing process of the goods themselves (limited edition figures for example would likely be given a greater level of protection leaning towards artwork).