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.

Wow, so many votes! I voted for the category currently in the lead (bits that cannot be bought individually) but there are so many different "clone" categories that, if you total them up, it seems like that is more of the consensus.

I heard a line that went something like:
"Each model you copy is taking money away from the sculptor."

It might be true for traditional art sculpture, but not for miniature work.

The sculptor has already been paid for his/her work. They do not get royalties for the use of these sculpts, nor retain the rights them (unless contracted otherwise). Copying the work does therefore not 'harm' the sculptor - merely the corporation that holds the IP on the models.

I have copied stuff. What? I was taught how to make moulds and cast metals at a job. I practised with what I had to improve my skills. The original practice casts were all reused (the beauty of metal is that you can just melt it down and recast it).

No one cares. the people that do claim to care just ned something to claim to be FURIOUS over so they can Nerd Rage on the internet from the safety of their mother's basement.

Do want you want but keep your yap shut about it.

Isn't that simple?

Howlingmoon wrote:No one cares. the people that do claim to care just ned something to claim to be FURIOUS over so they can Nerd Rage on the internet from the safety of their mother's basement.

Do want you want but keep your yap shut about it.

Isn't that simple?

For some of them, it is that simple. For others, they may run a small miniature or game company, and every single recast tears into their paycheck. They spend half of their life trying to get established, only to find someone on ebay selling cheap copies of their life's work. This is probably the reason for some of the knee-jerk reactions you get from this sort of thing. I've posted my opinion about the subject, but it doesn't mean that I can't empathize with those that I don't necessarily agree with.

Apparently it is impossible for the subject of "casting" to come up without every matchbook lawyer spouting off about the "legal" and "illegal" aspects of said topic.

It's an OPINION poll, how do you feel about it, and no amount of "check GWs legal page" isn't going to change someone's perspective about whether it is right or wrong.
Perhaps it is best to just leave these damn threads to die, since they all end up the same, usually in bickering.

chromedog wrote:I heard a line that went something like:
"Each model you copy is taking money away from the sculptor."

It might be true for traditional art sculpture, but not for miniature work.

The sculptor has already been paid for his/her work. They do not get royalties for the use of these sculpts, nor retain the rights them (unless contracted otherwise). Copying the work does therefore not 'harm' the sculptor - merely the corporation that holds the IP on the models.

I have copied stuff. What? I was taught how to make moulds and cast metals at a job. I practised with what I had to improve my skills. The original practice casts were all reused (the beauty of metal is that you can just melt it down and recast it).

Actually, it is even more so for miniature work, as the same miniature may be replicated indefinatley (like certain dark eldar) earning the sculptor a small % per sale.

The sculptor owns the IP, so the sculptor decides how s/he wants it copyrighted GW does not own the IP on its sculpts, its sculptors do.

elite_dannux wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
The scale of the problem doesn't mean it isn't an issue. Candy bars are inexpensive, they cost the candy company a paltry amount to make. Do you believe it is okay to steal candy from a store, because the value is so small?

There is a big difference to shoplift a snickers in your example and to make a recast. A "recasted" snickers would be i a bought a whole new kitchen and chocolade/peanuts just to make myself a snickers at home. And is that illegal? To make a copy of a candybar? I have a really hard time to belive that.

Is it ok to shoplift a unit box from a store? Of course not. Is it ok to make a copy of a model (no matter the way)? Yes it is.


And you still havent aswered the question where the difference in recasting/sculpting in greenstuff/builing in plasticard are. For all reasons your coping a model.

There is a difference between recasting (copying) a mini or component and sculpting/making something out of plasticard/greenstuff. I'm not a legal eagle so cant give you a 'proper' explanation but scratch building something pays homage to the original, and providing you are honest and say its is an homage to the original you are doing nothing wrong, taking scratchbuild and passing it off as an original copyrighted and trademarked work would be dishonest...its not much of an explanation, if someone can explain better than please do.

Recasting is essentially cloning, you are taking an original work and then directly copy it. You could argue that you are paying homage to the original and by adding bits, green stuffing, is it is no longer original and therefore acceptable. Its seems a grey area but it is isn't, really.......Ill put it another way. you learn to sculpt buy the equipment, buy the material release your minis, trying to recoup your costs AND try to make a profit. Lets say someone needs 20 minis to build an army YOU want to sell 20 they buy 1 then clone the rest taking money out of your pocket...


Its a bit different when it personally affects us but I suppose GW PP Perry Minatures et al, can afford to subsidise the shifty and dishonest amongst us..right?

Anyway

getting back onto the OP's original topic I voted other. recasting and threads on the subject opens dim murky cesspools of commentary Legally its wrong we should publicly back that and then behind closed doors cure our silicone rubber......

I voted for the "ok for full clones of entire sprues" option.

I've done recasts, mostly it'll be a bit that I'll compose out of GW bitz and then mass copy for a project. Custom basing, converted heads, backpacks, specific weapons etc.
I've not had the guts to recast large models yet. Not to mention that the cost of recasting is viciously high. Unless you buy the gear to make really nice sculpts and the right materials (industrial stuff) you'll usually just end up with a passable likeness saved by the amount of copies you made and how good you are at fixing it with conversion mats and painting. Out of a batch of helmets I made about half or so that had bubbles or some casting flaw that needed some serious work to fix or just had to be scrapped.
This does say more about my skill as a recaster, but its still a valid point. Recasting does not guarantee a 100% copy, so you don't get 100% value for the cost you sink into it. Around here everything you need for recasting has to be ordered from an international supplier. Short of large conversion projects or something like 'Titan spare parts' it really isn't worth it. Its cheaper in most cases to just buy the models from GW.
Other 'casters' in my area have recast whole tanks but I've never seen one used in a game, they've all been for diorama or scenery projects (if that matters to someone). The recasters I know (all 3 of us) all have a policy about never selling anything they recast. That's just not the point of recasting for us.

The arguements against casting that refer to copyright etc don't really move me at all. I just don't agree with copyright and IP laws. Even though I've created things I guess I could copyright I prefer to license it via Creative Commons - Share Alike kind of license rather than some "NO MINE!" license. If your reasons against recasting are for legal reasons I can respect that, I'll still disagree though.
Abortedsoul made some great points. I'd also recommend checking out "RIP: Remix Manifesto", a very approachable documentary on copyright issue with a focus on the remix of music.

Aside from all this legals stuff recasting kindof feels like the logical 'next step' for me. I want to learn how to do it really well and hopefully I'll be recasting my own stuff some day ^^

@Krellnus
Are you sure the GW sculptors own the IP? If they're working for GW when they create it, its more than likely that GW owns it. Just wondering what your source is

PrOtOcoN wrote:

The arguements against casting that refer to copyright etc don't really move me at all. I just don't agree with copyright and IP laws. Even though I've created things I guess I could copyright I prefer to license it via Creative Commons - Share Alike kind of license rather than some "NO MINE!" license. If your reasons against recasting are for legal reasons I can respect that, I'll still disagree though.
Abortedsoul made some great points. I'd also recommend checking out "RIP: Remix Manifesto", a very approachable documentary on copyright issue with a focus on the remix of music.

Aside from all this legals stuff recasting kindof feels like the logical 'next step' for me. I want to learn how to do it really well and hopefully I'll be recasting my own stuff some day ^^

btw you wont be re casting you should be casting from your own sculpts and moulds.

I agree with Creative Commons but this still strives to protect the ownership of the original work, you do not give copyright up it just makes transfer and useage a bit simpler.

I have had experience with people recasting, not minis but the principal is the same, the guys making money i could understand, hate them, but understand. Saying that you understand the law but are going to break it anyway is just plain stupid, saying it causes no harm is just village idiocy. Doing it then whining about 'the man' just makes euthanasia more attractive.

if you are going to do it just do it don't brag about it or try and justify your actions.

PrOtOcoN wrote:

The arguements against casting that refer to copyright etc don't really move me at all. I just don't agree with copyright and IP laws. Even though I've created things I guess I could copyright I prefer to license it via Creative Commons - Share Alike kind of license rather than some "NO MINE!" license. If your reasons against recasting are for legal reasons I can respect that, I'll still disagree though.

I think there is some wisdom to be found here.

Mr. Burning wrote:Saying that you understand the law but are going to break it anyway is just plain stupid, saying it causes no harm is just village idiocy. Doing it then whining about 'the man' just makes euthanasia more attractive.

if you are going to do it just do it don't brag about it or try and justify your actions.

It may just be me, but I didn't find one reasonable or convincing bit of argument in your entire post. Did you just say it to be redundant? If so, you could have just typed "check the legal policy on GWs site illegal stuff is always bad" like everyone else. If you do have a serious point that nobody has posted yet, I'd love to hear it. I'm sure there is a good reason that you believe what you do, and I don't want to make it seem like nobody is interested in hearing it. I'd love to find out your reasons behind your convictions. ^.^

Making the assumption that people are explaining to justify themselves seems entirely unfounded guesswork- it would probably be safer to assume that they are doing it so that maybe someone else will understand.

abortedsoul

yeah, you have a point. looking back on my post and others on this thread I'm being pretty redundant without being totally clear or having a point.

I have been affected by theft through the use of 'recasting'. the real damage came from the mentality of some users who whilst acknowledging the law saw nothing wrong with taking something I had created and then copying it so they did not have to pay for another item. I lost sales.

Thats my personal beef.

though this has absolutely no relevance to the poll in question

Mr. Burning wrote:Saying that you understand the law but are going to break it anyway is just plain stupid, saying it causes no harm is just village idiocy. Doing it then whining about 'the man' just makes euthanasia more attractive.

if you are going to do it just do it don't brag about it or try and justify your actions.

I actually think that the first step in breaking any rule must be to understand it. If you don't understand why the rule is in place, it's propably a good idea not to break it. ^^
That aside I really tried to not sound like I was justifying breaking the law, certainly didn't think I was coming of as bragging =p
If I'd said something like: "Yeah take THAT corporate fat cats! I'm copying your stuff in this basement. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! *PrOtOcoN is now listening Sex Pistols - Anarchy in the UK*" then I'd understand your reaction.

I'm just saying that there are other reasons to recast than not liking GW or [Insert model creator of your choice], or wishing to hurt their sales. We can agree and disagree with those reasons in a civil discussion, but the law doesn't allow for another view on this matter. I can't talk my way out of that, I mean that's it, it's illegal.

I use to be extremely paranoid about people stealing my work, be it written or painted works. I'd refuse to show other people I knew to be creative or like minded since, who knows, they might steal it! I'd not show anyone anything I painted or a conversion I'd made or whatever. Then I realized...if someone were to make something like I'd made (even without seeing mine first) and then THEY would show everyone, why should anyone believe it was me that did it first, or before the person in question? That was what originally got me to be alot more open about what I'm writing, painting, converting or whatever. If people copy it, so be it. Theirs will always be a copy and I can prove it is. In the same way, what I recast will always be a recast, no matter what I later do with it. But with appropriate credit to the original author, I don't see a (moral) problem with actually doing it. Just as I'd not have a problem with someone taking something I spent alot of time on making, and reusing it in some constructive way.

Everything we do is a recast. Some things are just still illegal. (waxed abit poetic there...but I think it's an appropriate end to my rant)

PrOtOcoN wrote:
Everything we do is a recast.

One of the strongest lessons available from studying history.

Mr. Burning wrote:abortedsoul

yeah, you have a point. looking back on my post and others on this thread I'm being pretty redundant without being totally clear or having a point.

I have been affected by theft through the use of 'recasting'. the real damage came from the mentality of some users who whilst acknowledging the law saw nothing wrong with taking something I had created and then copying it so they did not have to pay for another item. I lost sales.

Thats my personal beef.

though this has absolutely no relevance to the poll in question

I really do have sympathy for people who pour their blood, sweat and tears into something just to have it nabbed by someone else who is wanting to undercut them. In being reasonable, though, there has to be a limit. At what point can an idea be freely enjoyed by all? How long should a corporation be able to sit on an idea and stop all progress and enjoyment of the fruits of that idea without collecting its toll?

Fine lines and slippery slopes are involved here. Sure, if you're deathly afraid of facing moral dilemmas and troubling questions you can drool on yourself, mumble "illegal things are bad" and stumble about your blind way. I didn't get that impression from your statements at all, however. I do think that someone's personal beef is important; it at least holds relevance for what could happen, even if it isn't the most likely thing.


If I may, I am going to try and dispel an argument often made against recasting that is founded firmly in faulty logic.

An argument from potential holds any weight at all. For example, someone may say that "If you had bought the real miniatures, and not recast them, the company would have made more money." While technically true, the statement itself holds a faulty assumption. I may have purchased my minis from a different company, for instance, or I may have gone out and bought fast food. That money might have ended up in my savings account.

Also, saying that recasting hurts peoples "potential sales" is like saying that not running outside right now to rape as many people as you can find is killing your "potential children" that you could have had with those people. Think of all those kids that will never get a chance at life because of the rape that you didn't commit! See the problem there? An argument from potential is, as it goes, no argument at all.

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't really convincing moral arguments for certain kinds of recasting, such as mass-scale ripoff-and-sell recasting. I'm just saying that the field isn't as clear as some people make it out to be, even if they need to tell themselves otherwise.

I have personally never done this, but I have seen people do it when they loose a turret, or need a part and don't want to pay $70 dollars for the model just to get a leg (I am particularly supportive of recasting bits which aren't on the GW website, as I am quite disappointed that they don't have their bits order system anymore, (and with that I'd just like to give kudos to Privateer Press and any other minature companies which do have a complete bits orders system). I voted that I think it is right for minatures which are now out of print, and people still want, but can't get anymore. I think it's wrong to (for example) cast an entire army of squats, then use them in a tournament as imperial guard, unless you bring that same army as 'actual' imperial guardsmen to show that you've dropped the same amount of cash as everyone else has on their armies (I realize that casting is costly, and that some people get their legit armies for next to nothing, but that's another argument).

I think casting is completely legit when you want to make scenery or something where you aren't actually going to use the figures directly in the game. For instance, I wanted to make a 'silver tower' of Tzeentch and have some out of print thousand sons models on it, as 'guards' who didn't have any actual presence in the game. since all of the models are lead, I decided that the best way to do it would be to just cast them in resin or a light plastic which would help me to keep them on the vehicle, since it would be so much lighter. If you think about it, a lot of apocalypse items have to be scratch built (how else are you going to get a warlord titan, or a Khorne lord of battle?).

That's just my 2 cents. I think it's wrong to go make casts of brand new metal or plastic models then try to sell them on ebay for a profit, but I'm sure people do it.

I believe in very little copyright anymore. Companies have taken copyright law so far that if the public swings the pendulum so far back the other way that companies die, it serves them right.

Burn it all down!

when i first got into 40k gaming, i got taken big time by a recaster. he had made up a line of Old West miniatures for a gaming system (don't recall which) that went belly up. so he had everything he needed to make "professional" grade recasts. i say professional due to my being a complete NOOB to the minis and game. i bought tons of RT era Marines, speeders and dreadnaughts. after a few months the owner and a couple of managers at one of my FLGS told me the truth after they found out i'd bought from him. and here's my biggest gripe (other than it's WRONG), he was using real lead. not pewter, lead. at the time i had 2 toddlers. i was livid when i found out.
i'm sure i garner resentment for my position, but i'm against it.

From an ethical standpoint, I use my common sense. Recasting is okay until you're using it to crank out entire squads of still-in-production minis. If you're recasting your old Squats/RT-era Marines rather than spending scary amounts of money on replacements, or you just need a load of Meltaguns, it's permissible; GW does offer metal meltaguns in sets of four, but no one's going to pay for that and I think that's understood. How much profit do you think GW is really making from selling little pewter sprues of meltaguns at ridiculous prices? No one's going to notice or care if you make your own... you're still buying the minis.

I think viewing the game as a "system" is a flawed way of thinking; I've supported the rules and bought the rights to use them in game; after that nothing's stopping my from buying Codex: Imperial Guard and then using homemade models or Pig Iron minis to build my list. I'm being supportive of GW by buying ANYTHING from them.

If buying a pack of melta-guns is going to cause you financial troubles maybe you should be doing something else with your money to begin with.

I say that recasting is fine as long as you don't sell it or cleam that it's yours. That is how most copyrights work...

How else am i supposed to get 20 meltas?

HoverBoy wrote:How else am i supposed to get 20 meltas?

You buy them. Like everyone else.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1080005&prodId=prod1400031

And entrust them to the local postal services, im lucky if even one reaches me intact

Edit: In all honesty i can't recast to save my life

HoverBoy wrote:And entrust them to the local postal services, im lucky if even one reaches me intact

GW tracks their shipments.

If it doesnt reach you , they'll keep shipping it till they do reach you.

You need not worry about that at all.

Personally, I don't mind it at all. Games Workshop tends to overprice everything anyway.

Redbeard wrote:[

The scale of the problem doesn't mean it isn't an issue. Candy bars are inexpensive, they cost the candy company a paltry amount to make. Do you believe it is okay to steal candy from a store, because the value is so small?

It's not silly, it's how society functions. We don't steal items and justify it because the value of the item was low.

It is neither accurate nor is it honest to equate stealing a physical thing to copying the work of someone else. If you have a great idea on how to arrange the furniture in your house a certain way to make it pleasing to the eye, for instance, I could simply rearrange my furniture to be like yours instead of hiring you for your signature style as an interior decorator. That would be a more intellectually honest comparison. Is it moral to copy someone else? That is the question; whatever casting is, it isn't physical theft and it is unreasonable and draconian to pretend that the two perceived indiscretions are identical.

JD21290 wrote:For example; someone makes custom lasguns and then casts them for his/her guard.

If you sculpt your own weapons or models, make a cast of your work, and then make copies of your work, that's not recasting. If you buy a model, make a mold of the model, and make copies of that model, that's recasting.

personally, im all for recasting for personal use. Lots of people i know want to dive head first into the hobby, but dont have the funds. So casting up models, and converting and painting like everyone else is fine by me. It's a hobby and a game, and IMO models are just models.


Recasting and selling them, i dont like. Unless it's 100% your own work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
personally, im all for recasting for personal use. Lots of people i know want to dive head first into the hobby, but dont have the funds. So casting up models, and converting and painting like everyone else is fine by me. It's a hobby and a game, and IMO models are just models.


Recasting and selling them, i dont like. Unless it's 100% your own work.

Not quite sure if this post is worth starting a new thread for, but I have to question wether or not the people claiming that GW's legal information is the gospel have done ANY research into Fair Use laws, at least in the United States? Most of what's on their webpage is simply wrong. It is a giant lie, I presume to scare people. I've established in other posts here on Dakka, that I'm a massive GW fanboy, but people have GOT to do their homework on what is, and is not legal; that GW page is simply one of the biggest peices of misinformation I've ever seen. We're not talking simple mis-inturpritation here, we're talking outright lies from my favorite gaming company in the world. A few finer points to note:

GW's website says that you cannot reproduce any part of their books for any reason, without explicit written concent.

And yet U.S. copyright law, section 107: Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

It's the reason GW's attempt to copyright the roll to hit, roll to wound, armor save mechanic failed miserably in courts.

Their claim that you can't use their "IP" being their trademarks in any website without explicit permission is also a lie.

"Can I copyright the name of my band? (or in this case product ideas etc.)
No. Names are not protected by copyright law. Some names may be protected under trademark law." I did some research on this one, and GW HAS filed trademark claims to darn near everything in their empire, but they are effectively abusing the system and intent of the law. It is stated very clearly in the opening paragraphs of the trademark law is highly frowned upon, (That includes naming COMPONENTS of a SYSTEM i.e. figures and game mechanics) and abuse of the trademark system is grounds for legal repurcussions.

Regarding their claim that you are technically violating copyright from even posting photos of your miniatures:

Taken from the electronic copyright division website: "Copyright law protects the original photograph, not the subject of the photograph. " So in other words, using their photo of their product is a violation, but taking your own is completely legal, AND doing whatever you want with it.

Yet they make another claim that you cannot create distribute or use in any way, material that is derogatory, obsene, etc. etc. which is also completely anti first-amendment as even a 6th grader can tell you.

All I'm saying here is that take whatever GW says with a grain of salt, especially in regards to copyright law. I don't think the people writing that page have even read copyright/trademark laws and have put most of that info out there to scare folks.

can someone explain what recasting is please? I would really appreciate it.

If my memory serves me right were some articles in some of the old White Dwarf about casting items, such as banners, weapons and small items.

The rule of thumb is.

You may cast molds for your personal use.

You may not sell those items that you just made duplicates of, unless you have the "rights" to do so.