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.

Jollydevil wrote:
Good. Theres no use in argueing this, as im going to stick to my opinion, and you yours.

- Personal attack removed by moderator. Saying it's not a personal attack doesn't actually make it true unless it's actually not a personal attack -

LunaHound wrote:

Jollydevil wrote:oh please. who actually uses conscienses these days?

Oh trust me , this is why i wanted to leave the discussion , because i know it'll end up with this been the bare bones.

Like i said and like you said. The conscience to follow or not follow the law.
Because for you , no one know = legal.
But for me , something is illegal the moment you chose to break the rules.

That was not intended to be a serious comment...

Skinnattittar wrote:They are perfectly applicable examples.

They're really not because, once again, they have nothing whatsoever to do with copyright.

Having an idea does not entitle you to being able to profit from it.

No, it doesn't. Creating a product does entitle you to certain protections that are intended to ensure that you have the ability to profit from it, and to ensure that others can't simply take your idea and duplicate it. That's what copyright law is for.

Whether or not it does what it is supposed to do is a matter of some debate. But the idea of copyright law is to encourage people to take their ideas and create new and wonderful things with them. Because allowing everyone else to just copy your product willy-nilly (at least so the theory goes) discourages people from doing that.

insaniak wrote:

IronfrontAlex wrote:If you Re-cast models; primer and paint them how are they able to enforce any jurisdiction?
I mean can you even tell? there would be no evidence

If you're recasting metal models in plastic, it's pretty obvious as soon as someone picks one up that something's not quite right...

Indeed. I do, however, Know a Guy Who Knows a Guy who has found away around that.

That being said, even when Painted, metal still feels like metal and you can tell if the models are not metal, even if they have the correct weight.

So here's an interesting bit that I'd like to throw out there to all of those on a moral high-horse. What's the difference between casting your own models, and Paperhammer? One requires you to actually purchase models, right?

And to all of the guys that think you're gonna do it cheaper in resin, I don't think you quite understand what you're getting in to. I have a resin casting setup at home (I make custom models for friends and use it for other non-wargaming hobbies.) Just the compressor, pressure pot, and all the assorted gear that goes with it (vital if you want to make a decent mold/model at all) ran me damn near 300 bucks. Molds are anywhere near 5 to 20 dollars each to make, depending on the size, and it's all too often that you get a bad mold.

Most of the time, it's just going to be cheaper (not to mention easier!) to buy from GW. There's a few notable stupid exceptions, i.e. Terminators...10 dollars for a plastic army man? C'mon guys.

As far as the legality goes, I've YET to see a law posted in here that says it's illegal to reproduce minis. If you were doing it with intent to sell, yes, that's obviously illegal, but as far as for your own use, I haven't seen anything against it.

Take electronics for example. I build tube guitar amps, and have built several Fender and Marshall clones. There is absolutely nothing illegal about doing so, in fact you can get kits that have all the parts you need to build it!

One other thing, there's been a few times that I've casted parts, for the simple fact that I can't buy them from GW anymore. They really shot themselves in the foot when they removed the option to order bitz and sprues.

This isnt anything to do with moral high-horse.

Its about the rules that says why its illegal ,
and the good reasons to why the rules are made to protect the company in the first place.

ok?

Aramus wrote:One other thing, there's been a few times that I've casted parts, for the simple fact that I can't buy them from GW anymore. They really shot themselves in the foot when they removed the option to order bitz and sprues.

Yes , that is something i hear very often , and sure its a pain . By all means i feel your pain , i do.
But here is why i dont think you should.

What makes us tolerate these high prices? too many reasons , but to list one relevant to this thread ,
a box will very often contain bits , LOTS of left over bits. The bits adds worth to a box , the bits adds possibilities to be re-sold , traded etc etc
all of the possibility help reinforce the price of the box.

If everyone just cast which ever bits they need , there will no longer be a stable ground for people with left over bits to take parts in.

LunaHound wrote:This isnt anything to do with moral high-horse.

Its about the rules that says why its illegal ,
and the good reasons to why the rules are made to protect the company in the first place.

ok?

Aramus wrote:One other thing, there's been a few times that I've casted parts, for the simple fact that I can't buy them from GW anymore. They really shot themselves in the foot when they removed the option to order bitz and sprues.

Yes , that is something i hear very often , and sure its a pain . By all means i feel your pain , i do.
But here is why i dont think you should.

What makes us tolerate these high prices? too many reasons , but to list one relevant to this thread ,
a box will very often contain bits , LOTS of left over bits. The bits adds worth to a box , the bits adds possibilities to be re-sold , traded etc etc
all of the possibility help reinforce the price of the box.

If everyone just cast which ever bits they need , there will no longer be a stable ground for people with left over bits to take parts in.

What rules say it's illegal? Examples please.

I get lots of left over bits when I build other plastic kits for the most part too, and those cost far far lest that many GW kits (not saying that ALL GW kits are overpriced, but there are a few that have a huge WTF factor)

I still don't see your argument as being valid. Noone is going to spend 300 + mold making material + resin + stuff to make mold boxes, ect, just to cast a few bits. And if the parts aren't even being made anymore (the old Eldar special weapons plastic sprue is a good example) what's the catch?

Another example is, say the new Killa Kan set. It comes with ONE grotzooka, when you can take a max of...6 I think? Do you really expect me to buy 6 boxes at 44 bucks each to make 3 models? I'm not saying I'm going to cast them (actually going to scratch build the needed weapons, but buy the Kans, since that kit is oh so sexy) but do you see my point?

Aramus wrote:
I still don't see your argument as being valid. Noone is going to spend 300 + mold making material + resin + stuff to make mold boxes, ect, just to cast a few bits. And if the parts aren't even being made anymore (the old Eldar special weapons plastic sprue is a good example) what's the catch?

Another example is, say the new Killa Kan set. It comes with ONE grotzooka, when you can take a max of...6 I think? Do you really expect me to buy 6 boxes at 44 bucks each to make 3 models? I'm not saying I'm going to cast them (actually going to scratch build the needed weapons, but buy the Kans, since that kit is oh so sexy) but do you see my point?

The catch lets see, every 4 years there is a general update for GW 's products. If every 4 years it makes the OOP items legal to be recast ,
you know , thats like saying your army you have now only have the life expectancy of 4 years , because no one will ever buy your OOP army
when they can just recast it as much as they want , CHEAP. So what happens? your current army suddenly feel very expensive or worthless doesnt it.
Long story short , OOP items are worth "something" because there might be people that still need it , and just the same , there are people that need to get rid of it.

See?

The underlined part , yes everyone know thats an issue , not enough weapons to go around.
However, think of it this way. If ALL the killkan comes with all the weapon option for the 3 , do you honestly believe
GW wouldnt raise the price to like ALOT?

So what options are there?

a) GW includes all the weapon options enough for all , thus raising the price of the box (lol) And link back to what i said about left over bits vs recast . It'll ruin it.
b) GW only include the most effective weapon option currently in the codex (lol)
c) GW makes and mix match some weapon options (like what we have now)
d) GW produce weaponless kits , in a cheaper price , but sell the weapon options separately ( effective , but people said they always welcome bits so they dont mind )
e) Recast anything you want , and imbalance this niche market.
f) Make your own scratch built grotzooka , cast it to your hearts content , WIN! But what if we dont have the skill to scratch build? Well Timmy , now you know why we should
respect a company because hiring artists and designin +producing them costs money too!

I mean , why should GW go through the trouble of :
1) Hiring artists
2) Acquiring machines to produce the products
3) Spend money advertising the product , thus creating a player base for the game to be possible?

And have someone waltz in , take all the 3 things i listed for granted , and recast their own army?

What kind of idiot would spend millions of their own money to help create / pave / nurture a creation , just for the others to steal / reproduce them for $10 ?
No one , thats why we have rules and laws.

Well, my head really, really hurts. Some of the arguments in here are rather...dubious. A lot of these arguments are ones I've seen when people tell me pirating games and movies are OK. One guy downloading a game isn't going to hurt a companies profits, after all! No, but a hundred thousand might. It's not breaking the law if you don't get caught. No, it's still illegal. Just getting away with a crime does not make a crime right. Ask anyone who has, say, been robbed and the criminal never caught.

The way I see it is this; Games Workshop hires the sculpter, gives him the tools and materials, pays hime by the hour for many, many hours of work, where a great deal of the material they provide will end up wasted as either poor sculpts or simply ones they aren't going to use. Then they pay for those scults to be made into proper molds, pay for the materials, pay for them to shipped. You then pay them for the right to use and own that particular model. You do not buy the rights to Space Marine Tactical Squads because you bought a box.

That, I feel, is a key point in these arguments. People feel that buying a product has given them a certain entitlement to that product. Yes, you own those sprues. If you choose you can glue them all into a single giant ball, paint it purple and hurl it off a cliff. Who hasn't felt the urge to that with models on occasion? But you do not have the right to grab every model from the same kit and glue those into a ball and throw them off a cliff. You own the models you have bought, nothing more. Therefore, how have you got a right to copy those models?

They aren't your creation. You did not pay for there development. You do not own the copy right behind them. They are not your intelectual property. You have the right to make some little toy soldiers, paint 'em up and play with them, and you can do those things in anyway you choose. But that's it. Just because you can make stuff, just because you don't want or cannot pay for it doesn't mean it's legally right. Morally, I'll leave up to you.

This arguement is going round in circles.

Does anyone actually mass produce figures by cloning.
Disregarding the legal/moral issues for a moment, it seems a lot more trouble than it is worth.
Also good quality materials don't come cheap.

Personally I couldn't be bottomed as it seems a tedious way of creating an army. By the time you made them you could have saved up and bought the blooming critters anyway.

However some of the comments seem to go too far.
as an example I scratched a Night Gobbo as a marker for the Dwarf Cannon. According to a post above this is breach of copyright because i have styled the figure to fit the set of gobbos i have.

Also I have been scratching a personalised figure for my daughter tpo use with her Wood Elves- a sort of avatar.
I used the hands from the spares in the Wood Elves Battalion set. According to what has been said above this is illegal.
Well if it is TOUGH ! come and sue me GW. But you know what - even their lawyers aren't that pernicious are they? GULP! I hope not

I approve.

I just wonder what will happen to you when you step into a store with them...

I still am amazed at how people believe that it's ok to do something against the law just because they will not get caught. I make no distinction between making a duplicate of a model and stealing someone's wallet. They are both against the law, even if you don't get caught. As well how do the people who know they are doing illegal activities but justify it because "no one" is being "hurt" look at themselves in the mirror. Maybe it was just how I was raised but I am thanking God I still have a conscience, that tells me right from wrong.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
However some of the comments seem to go too far.
as an example I scratched a Night Gobbo as a marker for the Dwarf Cannon. According to a post above this is breach of copyright because i have styled the figure to fit the set of gobbos i have.

Also I have been scratching a personalised figure for my daughter tpo use with her Wood Elves- a sort of avatar.
I used the hands from the spares in the Wood Elves Battalion set. According to what has been said above this is illegal.
Well if it is TOUGH ! come and sue me GW. But you know what - even their lawyers aren't that pernicious are they? GULP! I hope not

Uhhh...pretty sure I mentioned, several times, that you own the models you buy. See; Turning them all into a big ball of plastic, painting it purple and throwing it off a cliff. You have every right to glue Berzerker heads to Night Goblin bodies, but, and this is the important bit, just because you bought the boxes does mean you own Berzerkers or Night Goblins. Just as you can't open every box of these models and glue them together you can't copy them, because all you have bought is the right to models. You can do exactly what you want with the models. Except, you know, re-cast them.

The argument that because you have bought a model gives you the right to re-cast parts of the model is essentially arguing that buying the model has granted you rights to things that you simply don't get. It's like buying a computer game and arguing that, since you own the disc, you can rip out the game engine and use it to make your own game. But since the engines are the IP of another company, you can't.

My post was not in response to yours John
but to several previous comments

referring to the initial question of this thread, that i don't see the point of trying to clone an army

I can see the case for the odd bit or two if required for a conversion if no spares are available. But have not cloned anything myself.
Partrly the problem is getting good quality molds made at home that will produce good quality models. I would have thought it isn't that easy!
However I have no idea if some people do tyry this on.

The intellectual rights are what is under scrutiny as you infer. I get the impression that there is an absolutist view being expressed on the thread, which forbids scratching and use of parts on scratch built models if their arguement is practised.

While accepting that the law is the law and all that, there is a difference both legal and moral, between cloning an odd part or two for personal use, and using bought parts for the use as masters and reproducing them. Whether for oneself of for sale.
I have cloned some parts for my model aircraft builds in the past, though prefer to scratch build. The net effect on the industry is zip. We are talking pennies here.

Ghost in the Darkness wrote:I still am amazed at how people believe that it's ok to do something against the law just because they will not get caught. I make no distinction between making a duplicate of a model and stealing someone's wallet. They are both against the law, even if you don't get caught. As well how do the people who know they are doing illegal activities but justify it because "no one" is being "hurt" look at themselves in the mirror. Maybe it was just how I was raised but I am thanking God I still have a conscience, that tells me right from wrong.

One could argue that in this case, the consumer is simply exercising his power: It's like the justification that many who pirate software will use: If they like it, they will pay for it, OR they may consider the price unreasonable.

If a consumer feels a price is fair and within his means, he will want to compensate the producer for a job well done: In this case, the OP has decided that GW evidently doesn't charge a reasonable amount for its service: I'd argue that they charge far too much for what they sell and take too much advantage of the lack of competition, not to mention blowing their profits on gakky specialist games nobody plays...

Henners91 wrote:not to mention blowing their profits on Lord of the Rings games nobody plays...

Fix'd.

Actually lots of people play LotRs down in L.A.

I too play it sometimes

Well, I just went through a quick brush up on Copyright Infringement in the US and the UK and I consulted a friend of mine who is in Patent Law, and he studied Copyright law, though a long time ago.

Pretty much the synopsis, in relation to our discussion, was this:
The accusing party (GW) has to prove damages. While that is not their only concern, as long as the copier is not distributing the product or claiming it to be their own work (meaning they are not saying that the design of the model is theirs, not the actual copying itself, which IS their work), or using the copies "in the course of business" then there is nothing the accuser can really do.

Essentially, when you buy something, you have the right to make as many copies of it as you like as long as you are not distributing it (for profit or not) or using it to make money/in the course of business (this actually includes charities and non-profits!).

The best that GW could claim is that the copier was hurting their business by not buying models, but I did not see any evidence that this constitutes copyright infringement. I actually read a case about a person who was making poor copies of Beanie Babies. The court ruling was, in much fewer words, that the person could own and posses the copies as long as they weren't distributing them (even as gifts). In that case the copier had to pay damages because they had been selling them, but that the beanie babies they had not yet sold did not have to be paid for.

In the UK, they seem to be having some crack downs on copying, however. Even possessing the equipment to make the copies (I am guessing they mean molds and what not) and the copies themselves can constitute a crime if the authorities can show that you could have distributed them. So making mass copies of movies, but not selling or distributing them, can be considered a crime because you COULD eventually sell them, in the UK.

Skinnattittar wrote:In the UK, they seem to be having some crack downs on copying, however. Even possessing the equipment to make the copies (I am guessing they mean molds and what not) and the copies themselves can constitute a crime if the authorities can show that you could have distributed them. So making mass copies of movies, but not selling or distributing them, can be considered a crime because you COULD eventually sell them, in the UK.

In the UK, they want to make sharp knives illegal and Thoughtcrime is already a reality.

Gwar! wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:In the UK, they seem to be having some crack downs on copying, however. Even possessing the equipment to make the copies (I am guessing they mean molds and what not) and the copies themselves can constitute a crime if the authorities can show that you could have distributed them. So making mass copies of movies, but not selling or distributing them, can be considered a crime because you COULD eventually sell them, in the UK.

In the UK, they want to make sharp knives illegal and Thoughtcrime is already a reality.

How t he heck do they prosecute that?! "Your honor, as you can see in these photos of this man, he is clearly thinking about voting for this anti-government legislation. And in this photo, he is clearing thinking about stealing that apple."

Tbh until someone actually comes out with an example of GW legal dept. going after someone who does this I'd consider it fair game.

Henners91 wrote:Tbh until someone actually comes out with an example of GW legal dept. going after someone who does this I'd consider it fair game.

And even if they did, it wouldn't prove that they are correct and legal. Heck, in the US, winning a case does not even necessarily mean that what happened actually broke any laws or infringed on anything!

Wow..
This has gone beyond the OP and into the realm of legalities and morality..
Thankfully I lack the latter in regards to this hobby so couldn't care less what the OP does.

But.....

Does anyone know the basic cost of a pack of SM tactical squad and then the mark up on that price?

Some people seem to be confused as to what a patent is and what a copyright is; they are not necessarily mutually exclusive but are very different.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm
What Is a Copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly.

The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine.

I think anyone would be hard pressed to say wargame miniatures represent an "intellectual work". Fluff yes, rules yes, miniatures....eh, without being a lawyer, I dunno but my guess is no.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm
What Is a Patent?
A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the Patent and Trademark Office. The term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. US patent grants are effective only within the US, US territories, and US possessions.

The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm
These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything which is made by man and the processes for making the products.


Miniatures would most likely fall under the category of a patent. In the U.S. patents are granted for 20 years and may not be renewed. Which means I can probably copy my chaos dwarf blunderbusses for my own use and be safe for 2 reasons, they're more than 20 years old AND the creator does not make them anymore.
This is one of the reasons why they change their sculpting on miniatures so frequently.

Oddly enough I could only find 3 patents referenced to Games Workshop as assignee and these were for the mold injection process filed in the early 1990's.

Aramus wrote:So here's an interesting bit that I'd like to throw out there to all of those on a moral high-horse. What's the difference between casting your own models, and Paperhammer? One requires you to actually purchase models, right?

And to all of the guys that think you're gonna do it cheaper in resin, I don't think you quite understand what you're getting in to. I have a resin casting setup at home (I make custom models for friends and use it for other non-wargaming hobbies.) Just the compressor, pressure pot, and all the assorted gear that goes with it (vital if you want to make a decent mold/model at all) ran me damn near 300 bucks. Molds are anywhere near 5 to 20 dollars each to make, depending on the size, and it's all too often that you get a bad mold.

Most of the time, it's just going to be cheaper (not to mention easier!) to buy from GW. There's a few notable stupid exceptions, i.e. Terminators...10 dollars for a plastic army man? C'mon guys.

As far as the legality goes, I've YET to see a law posted in here that says it's illegal to reproduce minis. If you were doing it with intent to sell, yes, that's obviously illegal, but as far as for your own use, I haven't seen anything against it.

Take electronics for example. I build tube guitar amps, and have built several Fender and Marshall clones. There is absolutely nothing illegal about doing so, in fact you can get kits that have all the parts you need to build it!

One other thing, there's been a few times that I've casted parts, for the simple fact that I can't buy them from GW anymore. They really shot themselves in the foot when they removed the option to order bitz and sprues.

This isn't a legal site. If you want to read about IP law, start with the stickied post '10 Copyright Myths' which is in the Dakka Discussion forum. You can go from there to the US and UK Copyright sites, and branch out into Patent and Trademark too.

Well, seeing as how all these folks are going to just keep right on doing whatever they want regardless of little details like facts, laws, and survivability of the hobby they supposedly want to participate in....


I vote for this thread to me moved to YMDC so someone with more experience can rip them a new one.


Gentlemen (children?), if you do not understand why casting is wrong, I'm willing to bet you don't have a very good grasp on the concepts of money, finances, business, or investments.

So my advice is to start being a little more conservative with your allowance. When Daddy gives it to you, learn to put half in your piggy bank, and only spend the other half on candy and video games. If you do, after a month or so, you'll have plenty in the piggy to buy another brand new Tactical Squad! Horray! Maybe if you do really really well, you can buy them a Rhino, too!


Seriously. Grow up.

Copying is stealing. Stealing is wrong. If all you see is yourself getting something "free", you are a child. An adult knows that taking anything for free means someone somewhere is loosing something for your benefit. When that someone is the group of people making the very existance of your stolen product worth something, you are actually shooting yourself (AND ALL THE REST OF US) in the foot.

Think.

The rest is easy.

Kilkrazy wrote:This isn't a legal site. If you want to read about IP law, start with the stickied post '10 Copyright Myths' which is in the Dakka Discussion forum. You can go from there to the US and UK Copyright sites, and branch out into Patent and Trademark too.

Well that seems like a silly argument to make. We're talking about the legality of copying models for personal use. One would think law would come into a discussion about legality.

But if we're simply going to stick to moralities.... I would still say copying models is fine for personal use. It's not entirely nice to the original manufacturer, but if you're doing it to save money (if you CAN do it to save a marginal sum), then the manufacturer is most likely charging "too much" in the eyes of the customer, and they would not be willing to afford them anyhow. If you're doing it as your hobby, then that really doesn't effect the manufacturer, as you aren't going to buy models from him for the purposes of your recasting hobby.

Is it 100% kosher right? No. Is it 100% evil wrong? No. Is it +50% kosher? Yeah. Is it -50% evil? Yeah.

I agree there Skinnattittar. To the people screaming "Omg but it's costing GW Money", here is a tip, if they are casting, they wouldn't be buying additional models ANYWAY, so it actually causes GW to lose absolutely nothing.

Except for all the investment they made to create the game and it supporting products, marketing, development, printing, etc.....

I mean really...

I have a friend that pirates movies. He uses the same flawed argument "They charge too much."

Guess what? In a free market, the value of anything is what people will pay for it. Your decision of whether or not it's in your range of affordability is more relevant to your own financial situation than a right or wrong of the seller.

I think movies are overpriced, too. So I go to Movie Trading Company and buy used movies at a huge discount, that are JUST as good as the original. My collection of movies is of infinitely higher quality than his, and came at significantly less trouble. It's also legal, and stimulates the local economy.

If you want GW models and can't afford them, why not use Dakka Swap or Ebay? Just as good, and there's someone somewhere who could use that money, which is why they're selling in the first place.

You don't do business to break even. Those of you who expect GW to do so have an unrealistic idea of how a real economy actually works.

Gwar! wrote:I agree there Skinnattittar. To the people screaming "Omg but it's costing GW Money", here is a tip, if they are casting, they wouldn't be buying additional models ANYWAY, so it actually causes GW to lose absolutely nothing.

Well, technically, they lose money by not making the money those people would have been spending to buy those cast models. But that is only assuming that those models were cast so that the models would not need to be purchased.

That being said! If you did not have any intent on acquiring those models in the first place (i.e.; the acquisition of GW copy models is only coincidental to your choice of models), then GW is not even losing that! Further explanation being, that you would have just used proxies/paperhammer if you had not been casting them!

So even if you are casting GW models firstly for your hobby of casting, but secondary, or even tertiary, reason is so you won't have to buy those models, then technically you are harming GW. But! GW is in the hobby business, whether they like it or not. So they should expect a certain amount of loss due to people not buying their models, paints, and brushes. Really, if they want to claim damages because of people copying their models, there is extensional damages for people not buying their paints, brushes, army transports, etc... Though that would be FAR more difficult to defend.