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.

LunaHound wrote:Remember the Frodo recast? when he wore the ring?

The one that GW produced themselves, and sold as a limited edition model?

It's not recasting if GW cast their own models in a different material...

insaniak wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Remember the Frodo recast? when he wore the ring?

The one that GW produced themselves, and sold as a limited edition model?

It's not recasting if GW cast their own models in a different material...

Awww? darn i thought there was diorama for the part where Frodo put it on to hide from the wraiths

I would like to pose a question regarding copying/recasting.

I assume that if I were to recast new Necron lord or any current offering of GW, that it would be a violation of laws in the US. I actually am not even asking to debate that.

My question is related to a scenario like this; How do you handle restorations with reproduction parts on OoP minis? Take this piece as an example.

This was originally sold in 1987 as part of the Eldar warwalker.


So when does recasting, become making reproduction parts for restoration projects?
Understand that restorers in the antique, automotive, (most commonly known) and others often find themselves in a situation where they are copying existing parts to the best of their ability. A reputable restorer does disclose the use of reproduction parts vs original.

So for a product that is discontinued oop and no longer available for purchase through any standard channels of distribution that GW uses does that change your views on the matter.

Again I agree with DakkaDakka about not directly posting a pic and saying hey this particular item is a recast.

Makes no odds as far as I am aware, unless you get permission as pointed out, it is illegal
Am pretty sure there is a specific mention of this on the GW website
GW have stopped fans from producing things for games like Hero Quest

As I understand it(Biccat can confirm) reproduction of any part of a copyrighted work in this case would still qualify as infringement. Pirating a single song from an album is just as illegal as pirating the entire album.

The owner of the copyright has every right to either stop or start production of their works whenever they want. GW did this with the Tuarus and Llamasu models recently.

As for me personally, the parts that I do recast are primarily OOP(6th edition Empire infantry) as most parts that are currently produced are easier to get legally than making my own copies. The cost of materials and the time it takes to make a mold and cast must heavily outweigh the cost of legally obtaining said items(in the case of my infantry it's almost impossible to find them anymore).

Aerethan wrote:I'll grant you that, yes copyright infringement and any lawsuits involving it are civil suits. The cops couldn't care less if you recast.

The point stands that both are still illegal, and if anything the penalties for infringement are far worse than those of speeding.

Fixed.

And now the grammar police are after me!

Aerethan wrote:And now the grammar police are after me!

We are everywhere.

theunicorn wrote:So for a product that is discontinued oop and no longer available for purchase through any standard channels of distribution that GW uses does that change your views on the matter.

It's potentially no different where the law is concerned. OOP GW models are covered by exactly the same copyright laws as current production models. It's GW's choice as the copyright owner whether or not to continue producing their property.

From a personal stand-point, it's a fairly divided issue. Some people feel that it's not a problem, on the basis that you can't be costing the copyright owner anything by copying something that they no longer sell. Others see it as not so clear-cut... you're devaluing the worth of people with legitimate 'vintage' collections by increasing the number of models out there, and you're copying old models instead of buying new ones, which (under this viewpoint) is costing the copyright owner money.

Related to the vintage recast issue, how long does a company hold rights to IP once it no longer produces that piece? I suspect the answer varies from country to country. I have heard that the reason Disney re-releases a old Disney classic out of the "vault" every so often is to protect its IP rights to the product.

theunicorn wrote:Related to the vintage recast issue, how long does a company hold rights to IP once it no longer produces that piece? I suspect the answer varies from country to country. I have heard that the reason Disney re-releases a old Disney classic out of the "vault" every so often is to protect its IP rights to the product.

That makes sense of why they do that. I was always wondering about that.

You can restore your old model, by sculpting an ascloseaspossible substitution piece from scratch.

Usually people who make replacement parts machine them from scratch based on measurements but not straight casts.

theunicorn wrote:Related to the vintage recast issue, how long does a company hold rights to IP once it no longer produces that piece? I suspect the answer varies from country to country. I have heard that the reason Disney re-releases a old Disney classic out of the "vault" every so often is to protect its IP rights to the product.

Copyrights last for the life of the creator +70 years. Expect this to be modified by Congress before Disney's copyrights start to expire ~2019 (under the old system copyrights were for a fixed term).

The copyrights don't lapse or renew for lack of activity, so Disney can't increase the duration of their works by re-releasing them. They may do so to protect some trademarks.

theunicorn wrote:How do you handle restorations with reproduction parts on OoP minis?

It would probably be copyright violation. However, if you only produce 1 piece of a set in order to complete a model, you've got a good case of fair use. Heck, if you only recast that 1 piece for personal use, I'd be shocked if GW ever even notices.

nkelsch wrote:You can restore your old model, by sculpting an ascloseaspossible substitution piece from scratch.

Usually people who make replacement parts machine them from scratch based on measurements but not straight casts.

Funny that you mention that, there is a tv show that my wife watches on History channel, about a shop that restores old stuff. On at least 2 different episodes they have made straight recasts of parts they could not purchase, one was little figures in a coin operated game and the other was tail light covers. This stuck in my mind because she pointed out how they seemed to get the molds done so fast. She was being sarcastic and giving me a load of crap about being in my cave doing hobby stuff so much.

My point here is a professional restoration group does use recasts and discloses the use of them to the end buyer.

biccat wrote:

theunicorn wrote:How do you handle restorations with reproduction parts on OoP minis?

It would probably be copyright violation. However, if you only produce 1 piece of a set in order to complete a model, you've got a good case of fair use. Heck, if you only recast that 1 piece for personal use, I'd be shocked if GW ever even notices.

I feel replacing a missing gun, or backpack, or whatever bit to complete a model for personal use would/should fall under fair use and never even show up on the original IP holders radar. I also think that replacing a missing bit on a model that will be eventually given to someone else or sold would fall under fair use.


I suspect that a complete kit "replica" or "reproduction" as they are often called (still talking about way OoP here) may not fall under fair use. That is why it puzzles me as to how it can be done so easily in other industries.

theunicorn wrote:

nkelsch wrote:You can restore your old model, by sculpting an ascloseaspossible substitution piece from scratch.

Usually people who make replacement parts machine them from scratch based on measurements but not straight casts.

Funny that you mention that, there is a tv show that my wife watches on History channel, about a shop that restores old stuff. On at least 2 different episodes they have made straight recasts of parts they could not purchase, one was little figures in a coin operated game and the other was tail light covers. This stuck in my mind because she pointed out how they seemed to get the molds done so fast. She was being sarcastic and giving me a load of crap about being in my cave doing hobby stuff so much.

My point here is a professional restoration group does use recasts and discloses the use of them to the end buyer.

biccat wrote:

theunicorn wrote:How do you handle restorations with reproduction parts on OoP minis?

It would probably be copyright violation. However, if you only produce 1 piece of a set in order to complete a model, you've got a good case of fair use. Heck, if you only recast that 1 piece for personal use, I'd be shocked if GW ever even notices.

I feel replacing a missing gun, or backpack, or whatever bit to complete a model for personal use would/should fall under fair use and never even show up on the original IP holders radar. I also think that replacing a missing bit on a model that will be eventually given to someone else or sold would fall under fair use.


I suspect that a complete kit "replica" or "reproduction" as they are often called (still talking about way OoP here) may not fall under fair use. That is why it puzzles me as to how it can be done so easily in other industries.

If the piece you are restoring is old old old,you don't have copyright issues to worry about. And some pieces are not necessarily copyrighted... You can't compare reproducing a part for a 100 year old engine to a sculpted piece of art clearly copyrighted that is 20 years old.

These models we are discussion have valid copyrights as they are recent which makes the recasting illegal.

Being partially reproduced doesn't make it legal. An example of fair use is if I recast a model 10 times so I could apply test paint schemes to figure out which scheme worked, where upon at the finish of my project the reproductions would be destroyed. Making 10 models so I can have a larger unit is not personal use and is infringement of the copyrights.

Falling under the radar is a different issue...

theunicorn wrote:I would like to pose a question regarding copying/recasting.


My question is related to a scenario like this; How do you handle restorations with reproduction parts on OoP minis?

I am not a lawyer.

As a well-read amateur I believe it would still be illegal under US law because the original work is still under copyright. Recasting a work that is now in the public domain (which would have to be from the 1930s or earlier IIRC) would be fine but anything after that including now OOP games like Manowar or 1999 or whatever.

THe legal solution is to sculpt something new using some of the blank models reaper and others make. Then it's yours to sell and reproduce as you will.

There might be some trademark issues, companies have to be clear they're not GW and not use 'confusingly similar' terms like say... Doomseer. But that seems the way to go.

All that being said, recasting a missing or broken part on an oop model is certainly on the low end of recasting sins.

Aerethan wrote:To me there is no moral dilemma. Not all laws are made for moral reasons. There is nothing amoral about speeding on the freeway, yet it will still land you a hefty fine.

Morals are subjective to each person.

So you were trying to start the "recasting fight".

Worglock wrote:

Aerethan wrote:To me there is no moral dilemma. Not all laws are made for moral reasons. There is nothing amoral about speeding on the freeway, yet it will still land you a hefty fine.

Morals are subjective to each person.

So you were trying to start the "recasting fight".

I don't see how there is a fight to be had. Recasting is either immoral or not. It depends on who you ask. No different than asking someone what their favorite color is. The answer may vary from person to person, and there is no reason to argue it.

DoctorZombie wrote:

theunicorn wrote:Related to the vintage recast issue, how long does a company hold rights to IP once it no longer produces that piece? I suspect the answer varies from country to country. I have heard that the reason Disney re-releases a old Disney classic out of the "vault" every so often is to protect its IP rights to the product.

That makes sense of why they do that. I was always wondering about that.

Makes sense but it is incorrect. Consult the Berne Convention and the US and UK government websites concerning copyright for more information.

Canadian Citizens are allowed to reproduce copyrighted material for personal use.

IdentifyZero wrote:Canadian Citizens are allowed to reproduce copyrighted material for personal use.

Very few people seem to ever understand what actually counts as personal use. Usually these countries have very narrow definitions which do not support what people on the Internet claim.

Wargaming is not considered personal use. Making 10 copies to test paint schemes and destroying 9 would be considered fair use.

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

According to UK Law, (Copyright Law UK, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) There is a small bit about "Incidental copying of copyright work",

41. Incidental copying of copyright work---(1) Copyright in a work is
not infringed by---
(a) The incidental copying of the work in an artistic work, a sound
recording, a film, a broadcast, or a cable programme

.

It would seem that making parts like this is actually okay, as you have made a copy but not infringed the copyright.

That isn't incidental use, so you have infringed the copyright.

alphaomega wrote:According to UK Law, (Copyright Law UK, Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988) There is a small bit about "Incidental copying of copyright work",

41. Incidental copying of copyright work---(1) Copyright in a work is
not infringed by---
(a) The incidental copying of the work in an artistic work, a sound
recording, a film, a broadcast, or a cable programme

.

It would seem that making parts like this is actually okay, as you have made a copy but not infringed the copyright.

Incidental use means that the copying is incidental to the broader work, that is as a chance or minor consequence. If you're filming a movie and pan across a television for two seconds that is showing a rerun of the Simpsons, that is incidental use of the Simpsons copyright.

Copying a whole part is not incidental.