Recasting; the Great Debate

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.

**lord marcus**

mikhaila wrote:
Cheese Elemental wrote:After the flaming shenanigans that was the 'Confessions of a recaster' thread, I became curious as to what most people think of it. Yes, it's illegal and I'd prefer to buy things for the sake of being a good citizen, but sometimes it's just practical or necessary. I mean, does GW seriously expect me to buy three metal IG Special Weapon blisters to make a squad of melta-vets? And where am I supposed to get fresh, unpainted RT era minis?

And some people say that recasting anything is cheating GW. Don't you think we pay enough already for their products?

I'd only recast small things like special weapons, certain bitz, or old OOP minis. What's your view? I didn't follow the last thread too well.

I often have the same moral dilemma: illegal, but it's practical or necessary.

I mean, say you like your buddy's girlfriend, but know she won't date you while she's out with him. It's illegal to kill him and dump mind control drugs in her wine, but it's more practical to throw him under a bus than wait around forever in case she dumps him. Heck, if he has an IG army with melta vets, you could make a double score.

My arguement is far fetched, yes. But look at the OP's. Recasting is illega, but if I want something and don't want to pay for it, I can find a way to justify it. Practical? Necessary? Neither of those is true in this case.

i tip my hat to you sir for a lols on the GF/BF kill-kill eye look commentary.

**aka_mythos**

Janthkin wrote:
Nah. The sprue is not a single "sculpture," it's a collection of sculptures held together by some waste material. The meltagun is complete in itself (as it most evident by the fact that they sell them individually).

If GW were to claim each individual piece were a distinctive and separate artistic works, we could file a class action suit for it being an illegal bundling, where we can only purchase a unique and distinctive product by buying a whole selection of products. Thats illegal if GW insists on them each being separate and distinct artistic works, which they aren't. The artistic work is the "Space Marine Command Squad" not the individual and often unnecessary components.

The important aspect is that you are not copying the essence of what the model kit is. Regardless of how you chose to use the kit what you are purchasing is the ability to assemble a "Space Marine Command Squad" the essence of that is whatever distinctly allows for that. As long as you are not replicating that ability to produce a "Space Marine Command Squad" you have legally implicit rights to minorly reproduce. GW's given permission in the past both to do minor casting, that permission gives us the right to until a time the demand an individuals stop, that is explicit. For you to say I can't or someone else can't do minor casting or casting of any kind you have to over rule our implicit rights and GW's explicit permission.

My point is that the action of recasting is not evil, it is how you choose to use and exploit that ability that shifts it from a implicitly lawful act to an illegal action.

**Wrexasaur**

aka_mythos wrote:My point is that the action of recasting is not evil, it is how you choose to use and exploit that ability that shifts it from a implicitly lawful act to an illegal action.

Like a nice Hawaiian breeze I tells ya'!

aka_mythos wrote:GW's given permission in the past both to do minor casting, that permission gives us the right to until a time the demand an individuals stop, that is explicit. For you to say I can't or someone else can't do minor casting or casting of any kind you have to over rule our implicit rights and GW's explicit permission.

Could you direct us to this information? I would be interested in seeing how GW put this statement. It has to be somewhere on the site, or in materials produced by GW, it would be fantastic for the thread if you could provide this.

**aka_mythos**

Well I'll have to dig out the couple of older White Dwarf and a couple other things they've wirtten blurbs about it in. They used to have an article on their website but it wasn't carried over when they did up their new site. One of their staff in the article explained how to take details like skulls, scrolls, and some other details and copy them with greenstuff. GW had it up on their website without any disclaimer, making it an endorsement of that the method was part of the hobby. I'm very certain they do exist, maybe someone can back me up on this till I find a citation of my evidence.

**Ketara**

My God, has this thread resurfaced again? I would have thought everything that couldbe said on both sides has been by now.

**Wrexasaur**

New information now I think, it is kind of hard to tell with the sheer quantity of posts. It is interesting to hear what aka_mythos said though, given the amount of negative feedback over a single melta-gun. Where did that sentiment come from, because GW has apparently had articles on HOW to do this, let alone not condemning it.

Perhaps their views have changed, but I have not heard of any retraction regarding these articles.

**Janthkin**

aka_mythos wrote:
Janthkin wrote:
Nah. The sprue is not a single "sculpture," it's a collection of sculptures held together by some waste material. The meltagun is complete in itself (as it most evident by the fact that they sell them individually).
If GW were to claim each individual piece were a distinctive and separate artistic works, we could file a class action suit for it being an illegal bundling, where we can only purchase a unique and distinctive product by buying a whole selection of products. Thats illegal if GW insists on them each being separate and distinct artistic works, which they aren't. The artistic work is the "Space Marine Command Squad" not the individual and often unnecessary components.

Nope, wrong again.

"Illegal tying" is only a problem in an antitrust situation, where a monopolist uses their control over one market to leverage entrance into another. GW isn't a monopoly; you can buy other toy soldiers. And this isn't a "tying" situation anyway - all of their pieces are in the same market.

And you CAN procure meltaguns individually, which (while STILL not a requirement) rather undermines the whole "it's the whole command squad!" argument.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

aka_mythos wrote:Well I'll have to dig out the couple of older White Dwarf and a couple other things they've wirtten blurbs about it in. They used to have an article on their website but it wasn't carried over when they did up their new site. One of their staff in the article explained how to take details like skulls, scrolls, and some other details and copy them with greenstuff. GW had it up on their website without any disclaimer, making it an endorsement of that the method was part of the hobby. I'm very certain they do exist, maybe someone can back me up on this till I find a citation of my evidence.

GW, as copyright holder, is free to grant whatever licenses they want to their works. So yes - they've given you published permission to make copies of purity seals using green stuff molds. But that's not permission to make copies of melta guns.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:New information now I think, it is kind of hard to tell with the sheer quantity of posts. It is interesting to hear what aka_mythos said though, given the amount of negative feedback over a single melta-gun. Where did that sentiment come from, because GW has apparently had articles on HOW to do this, let alone not condemning it.

Perhaps their views have changed, but I have not heard of any retraction regarding these articles.

As above. The copyright holder can grant you (or the world) a limited license to make copies of their copyrighted materials, if they so choose. But permission to copy a purity seal is NOT the same as permission to copy whatever you want. ("You" used in the generic here.)

**Augustus**

I'd like to back up the new GW 'displayed it in the past' thread.

I distinctly remember a piece about reproducing purity seals from originals with 2 sided green stuff press molds. I heard about it from the staffers at the GW store localy the first time I ever heard of it.

I believe it, (the process) was called press molding, involving squishing green stuff over an essentially flat relief detail, letting it harden, then pressing freshly mixed green stuff into the cavity of the original, essentially making a little copy of it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwzJkE2gKhA

**aka_mythos**

Janthkin wrote:
"Illegal tying" is only a problem in an antitrust situation, where a monopolist uses their control over one market to leverage entrance into another. GW isn't a monopoly; you can buy other toy soldiers. And this isn't a "tying" situation anyway - all of their pieces are in the same market.

And you CAN procure meltaguns individually, which (while STILL not a requirement) rather undermines the whole "it's the whole command squad!" argument. (/quote)
But as individual works that meltagun I can procure as a separate piece isn't the same identical design as in the command squad. They are alike but not the identical work of art. The meltagun either is distinctly individual or distinctly not. The arguement on the totality of it with relations to the command squad still holds water because you are not purchasing the kit as an assortment of parts as much as you are purchasing the final result of your assembly "Space Marine Command Squad".

GW controls easily 80% of the miniature gaming market. That and or the sway they have in the market place could prove that they have an effective monopoly. They have a $150,000,000 revenue this year. The next closest competetor was Wizkids and then Rahckam neither have nearly the same level of revenue or assets.

Janthkin wrote:GW, as copyright holder, is free to grant whatever licenses they want to their works. So yes - they've given you published permission to make copies of purity seals using green stuff molds. But that's not permission to make copies of melta guns.
This is why I made mention of both their explicit permission and our implicit right to use what we've purchased. Explicit permission that has given permission to reproduce details, but with no specification or limit on the nature of those details creates legally shakey ground for GW to prevent you from re-casting a small part. Part of my point though is even without GW's explicit permission, you have an implicit right to what you've purchased. Fair use while determined on a case by case basis lends us general guidlines of whats exceptable. The nature of the hobby GW sells to us requires by its very nature certain practices to be acceptable. Your level strictly interpreting the copyright of GW's would mean when I convert a model, I am breaking the law as I am creating a derivative piece of art. GW holds that sole right. Your interpretation means even when I sculpt 100% my own "Space Marine" I am once again violating GW's copyright. These types of violations are just as bad violations, yet GW not only allows them they actively endorse those violations. So why when they endorse methods to replicate details of models, does it suddenly become a line we must not cross. With out explicit limitation placed and a vague permission given we have the right granted to us, till a time GW says not to.

The arguement that was raised was that all re-casting is illegal. I say some re-casting is illegal. You have agreed to that even if you don't agree with my rationale or examples.

**Cane**

Janthkin wrote:
Cane wrote:My point is that this is nothing worth getting worked over for especially to the point of people generalizing and labeling eachother with derogatory terms but I will admit of calling anti-recasters bigots (specifically those that call the opposing side thieves for instance).

If it's not worth getting worked up about, why are you using loaded terms like "bigot" to describe people advocating the legally-correct position?

There was a poster that kept using the shoplifting candybar example and calling everyone that recasted an outright "thief" when it is not the "legally-correct" position as this thread has demonstrated. GW already set the precedent that its okay to recast some of their stuff and in a court of law a person that recasted a purity seal or something similar more than likely would be free of charge if they had adequate representation.

Use of loaded terms like "bigot" is counter-productive to legitimate discussion; you don't get to have the high ground here. All I offered was an example by which your excessively-broad application of the term is applicable to, frankly, everyone. So either you are using it in the original, perjorative sense, OR you've rendered it semantically null.

Right and I pretty much admitted to such in the first sentence you quoted from my post. Worth noting that it can be interpreted that using pejorative words like murder and thievery to recasting is, well, pejorative as well.

Another inapplicable example; the issue there is whether the military equipment manufacturers have any right to copyright in their designs, given the publically-funded nature of military tech development, and the licenses between the government & the manufacturers.

Its somewhat applicable just like the rest of the examples I listed, however its about trademark infringement and it seems like you aren't aware of it but admittedly I haven't followed it either; check out these links and you'll see what I mean:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10/pentagon-vs-hob/ - Pentagon versus hobby stores/models

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05/b-24-liberated - Lockheed Martin trying to shut down people using their trademarked "B-24" on their website, here's the concluding paragraph:

Because online communication and commerce often depends on intermediaries like TurboSquid, who may not have the resources or the inclination to investigate trademark infringement claims, it is much too easy for trademark owners like Lockheed to ignore fair use and shut down legitimate content. And not every target of improper claims is going to have the resources to push back.

Janthkin wrote:
And you CAN procure meltaguns individually, which (while STILL not a requirement) rather undermines the whole "it's the whole command squad!" argument.

The meltagun you buy separately is not from the command squad box and is a different model though.

Anyone know GW's stance on greenstuffing or plasticarding a replica of GW models? Vehicles especially since there's a ton of plans online on how to make your own Rhino, Titan etc.

In any case this thread has motivated me to try out recasting especially on small stuff similar to purity seals; that one Titan made out of recasted GW parts was pretty epic as well but I'll tackle bigger projects once I have the skill to do so mwhahaha

**Janthkin**

aka_mythos wrote:GW controls easily 80% of the miniature gaming market. That and or the sway they have in the market place could prove that they have an effective monopoly. They have a $150,000,000 revenue this year. The next closest competetor was Wizkids and then Rahckam neither have nearly the same level of revenue or assets.

I seriously doubt your math here. You're arguing that GW has 4 times the market share of Privateer Pres, Reaper, Rackam, Wizkids, AND all historicals combined? I know it's trendy to think of GW as "the big evil," but Microsoft they ain't.

aka_mythos wrote:This is why I made mention of both their explicit permission and our implicit right to use what we've purchased. Explicit permission that has given permission to reproduce details, but with no specification or limit on the nature of those details creates legally shakey ground for GW to prevent you from re-casting a small part. Part of my point though is even without GW's explicit permission, you have an implicit right to what you've purchased. Fair use while determined on a case by case basis lends us general guidlines of whats exceptable. The nature of the hobby GW sells to us requires by its very nature certain practices to be acceptable. Your level strictly interpreting the copyright of GW's would mean when I convert a model, I am breaking the law as I am creating a derivative piece of art. GW holds that sole right. Your interpretation means even when I sculpt 100% my own "Space Marine" I am once again violating GW's copyright. These types of violations are just as bad violations, yet GW not only allows them they actively endorse those violations. So why when they endorse methods to replicate details of models, does it suddenly become a line we must not cross. With out explicit limitation placed and a vague permission given we have the right granted to us, till a time GW says not to.

First, there is no shaky ground here. GW has given permission to do some things with their IP, namely make copies of purity seals using green stuff molds, and to convert them. (You don't actually need their permission to do conversions in the US; the doctrine of First Sale is your friend, so long as you don't make copies of your conversions. Europe, with their wacky moral rights, may benefit from the disclaimer provided on their website.) But these are explicit licenses - you can't take their permission to make purity seals, and apply it to meltaguns. (Copyright is somewhat like the 40k ruleset - unless GW says you can do a particular thing with their IP, you can't, outside of very limited Fair Use exceptions.)

And (I hope for the last time) Fair Use doesn't give you the right to copy meltaguns to avoid buying them.

Second, you ARE infringing GW's copyright if you sculpt your own Space Marine, if your version includes protectable elements of theirs. There is adequate discussion on this point earlier in the thread, including some analysis of which elements of a Space Marine are more likely to be protectable, and which aren't.

The arguement that was raised was that all re-casting is illegal. I say some re-casting is illegal. You have agreed to that even if you don't agree with my rationale or examples

The original question was simply "is it illegal to recast a meltagun, in order to avoid the inconvenience/expense of buying them?" The answer to that is "yes."

Yes, I can construct hypotheticals where recasting portions of someone else's product might be legal. And, to be perfectly clear, you can recast your own IP.

**Wrexasaur**

Janthkin wrote:And, to be perfectly clear, you can recast your own IP.

Phew... I was worried about that one for a minute there.

**Polonius**

Come on Janthkin, in a debate between a person who has knowledge, education, training and experience in the topic at hand and a person who tells us what we want to hear, we're going to go with the latter every time.

Seriously though, one aspect of the anti-trust angle is that even if GW were found to be monopolistic, you'd have to prove that before you starting duping stuff. Consumers would be granted damages, but odds are GW could counter sue for the damages due to duping.

**Cane**

After the flaming shenanigans that was the 'Confessions of a recaster' thread, I became curious as to what most people think of it. Yes, it's illegal and I'd prefer to buy things for the sake of being a good citizen, but sometimes it's just practical or necessary. I mean, does GW seriously expect me to buy three metal IG Special Weapon blisters to make a squad of melta-vets? And where am I supposed to get fresh, unpainted RT era minis?

And some people say that recasting anything is cheating GW. Don't you think we pay enough already for their products?

I'd only recast small things like special weapons, certain bitz, or old OOP minis. What's your view? I didn't follow the last thread too well.

There's the OP. I don't see how this discussion is solely limited to recasting meltaguns and this thread deals with recasting in general and included a smorgasbord worth of issues relating to it. OP brought up several different points that have been argued and discussed although I don't think he showed up in the thread after starting the fire.

**LunaHound**

If you want to play something , either play by their rules, or create something yourself with your rules. You cant lie to yourself by mix matching
what you find easier to follow.

I can go participate a swimming marathon , should i be riding a jetski because its too tiring to swim the full length with my own strength?

**Wrexasaur**

Cane wrote:There's the OP. I don't see how this discussion is solely limited to recasting meltaguns and this thread deals with recasting in general and included a smorgasbord worth of issues relating to it. OP brought up several different points that have been argued and discussed although I don't think he showed up in the thread after starting the fire.

It is not, but it got bogged down at every turn by a subtle flame war between the cops and robber that have contributed massively (I am a part of this to some degree, although I have not labeled anyone anything to the best of my ability in this thread) to the super thin point-stretching this thread has attained.

If you don't fully understand the rules, and have to dredge through 20 pages of madness...

Just quit now, run away, this debate is totally lost to the void unless points are summarized clearly and organized in a fashion that can be applied to each country individually when needed. I hope to see some sort of article addressing this issue in it's full scope, because "Recasting is wrong"... is wrong. I see a very complex subject that many (myself included) have tried to oversimplify to the point of generalizing points so they have no serious impact on the discussion at hand.

GW does not make the law, they follow it just as we do (hopefully on both sides to some degree at least).

**Agamemnon2**

Janthkin wrote:
aka_mythos wrote:GW controls easily 80% of the miniature gaming market. That and or the sway they have in the market place could prove that they have an effective monopoly. They have a $150,000,000 revenue this year. The next closest competetor was Wizkids and then Rahckam neither have nearly the same level of revenue or assets.

I seriously doubt your math here. You're arguing that GW has 4 times the market share of Privateer Pres, Reaper, Rackam, Wizkids, AND all historicals combined? I know it's trendy to think of GW as "the big evil," but Microsoft they ain't.

I think you're underestimating how massive the GW market share really is. What we consider competition are far from it in purely economic scale. Sure, we talk about PP and others on this forum a lot, but they're still like gnats compared to GW, we're only seeing a biased sample.

No other miniatures company has ever, is or will ever be able to compete with GW in terms of size.

**Ozymandias**

19 pages and people are still arguing with Janthkin? Some people don't know how to quit.

**Redbeard**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
I think you're underestimating how massive the GW market share really is. What we consider competition are far from it in purely economic scale. Sure, we talk about PP and others on this forum a lot, but they're still like gnats compared to GW, we're only seeing a biased sample.

No other miniatures company has ever, is or will ever be able to compete with GW in terms of size.

Ah, but that's under the assumption that competition would be limited in scope to "miniature wargaming companies". More likely, GW will claim that Tamiya, Revell, and Testors are all competitors, as they make competing plastic models. That Wizards of the Coast is a competitor, as they're another fantasy gaming company, and that, in the greater scheme of things, Lionel (model trains) is a competitor, as they're in the "hobby" industry, and Playstation is a competitor, as they're in the "gaming" industry. They're all competing for your entertainment dollar.

See how easily they can claim that they're still a little company... it's all about who you choose to compare yourself to. I read an interesting article on ESPN recently, about how the US Supreme Court is going to listen to a case where a sporting goods manufacturer is claiming that the NFL is acting as a trust, because the NFL wouldn't let the sporting goods manufacturer sell some item. The interesting part of it was that while the NFL won the case in the lower courts, they actually asked the Supreme Court to hear the case, because they stand to benefit if they can prove their case - that the NFL isn't a trust of NFL teams, it's actually a single entity, competing in the wider scope of 'entertainment' against other big organizations such as the NBA, MLB, and even concert promoters like Clearchannel.

Article linked here

**Cheese Elemental**

That's it, I'm putting the thread out of its misery. I'm not recasting anything other than OOP minis that GW doesn't get profit from, so the original point of the thread has been achieved and you can stop arguing.

**ph34r**

Cheese Elemental wrote:That's it, I'm putting the thread out of its misery. I'm not recasting anything other than OOP minis that GW doesn't get profit from, so the original point of the thread has been achieved and you can stop arguing.

Recasting OOP models kills the market for collectors of old models which means they will not attempt to collect models to resell which means GW loses profit. Just because it is too indirect to be obvious to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

**Alpharius**

THREAD CLOSED.