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.

tbh, those skulls look pretty damn close to me... # of teeth, small details... not sure it's really a big deal though i.m.o

Wow... this thread has got.... BIG! Are there any actual updates as to progress of this case? Is there a date where things will get decided? Maybe this thread should be locked until there is OFFICIAL news rather than a thread full of arguments and accusations. I hate it when the vultures start to circle!

Lol that BattleBarge launched 28 pages ago my friend

Regnak wrote:Wow... this thread has got.... BIG! Are there any actual updates as to progress of this case? Is there a date where things will get decided? Maybe this thread should be locked until there is OFFICIAL news rather than a thread full of arguments and accusations. I hate it when the vultures start to circle!

Well I've put in a link to the lawsuit, and linked another sites consultation with a lawyer. General consensus (i think) is that GW can make a case of the Trademark infringement

Hashshashin wrote:...but I think(based solely on my opinion) that some of their peices have components that (to me) appear to be from GW kits and to me that is out of line to sell those types of kits.

Is it, though?

The model makers behind the ships from the original Star Wars trilogy built the original master models from bits and pieces from a whole slew of different model kits, and then cast them and created the studio models from those castings.

There's a very long history of kit-bashing in the special effects industry, and nobody seems to have an issue with it. And while the original studio models generally aren't sold, reproductions of them, including what are ultimately just castings of bits of those original kits, often are, with no discernable legal repurcussions.

It's also not unheard of in the miniatures/gaming field for vehicle kits to be originally built from or including parts of model kits.


If the parts being copied were particularly distinctive or proprietry, then I could see how there could possibly be grounds for complaint. But a plain, unadorned skull? I would suspect that it would be barely a blip in the legal radar, if it even registers at all.

insaniak wrote:

Hashshashin wrote:...but I think(based solely on my opinion) that some of their peices have components that (to me) appear to be from GW kits and to me that is out of line to sell those types of kits.

Is it, though?

The model makers behind the ships from the original Star Wars trilogy built the original master models from bits and pieces from a whole slew of different model kits, and then cast them and created the studio models from those castings.

There's a very long history of kit-bashing in the special effects industry, and nobody seems to have an issue with it. And while the original studio models generally aren't sold, reproductions of them, including what are ultimately just castings of bits of those original kits, often are, with no discernable legal repurcussions.

It's also not unheard of in the miniatures/gaming field for vehicle kits to be originally built from or including parts of model kits.


If the parts being copied were particularly distinctive or proprietry, then I could see how there could possibly be grounds for complaint. But a plain, unadorned skull? I would suspect that it would be barely a blip in the legal radar, if it even registers at all.

To me, casting a GW bit to make an accessory for a GW kit which you then sell is different than creating something wholly original from a variety of parts. This has more of a place in a "do you think CH suck?" thread than whatever this is meant to be though.

insaniak wrote:

Hashshashin wrote:...but I think(based solely on my opinion) that some of their peices have components that (to me) appear to be from GW kits and to me that is out of line to sell those types of kits.

Is it, though?

The model makers behind the ships from the original Star Wars trilogy built the original master models from bits and pieces from a whole slew of different model kits, and then cast them and created the studio models from those castings.

There's a very long history of kit-bashing in the special effects industry, and nobody seems to have an issue with it. And while the original studio models generally aren't sold, reproductions of them, including what are ultimately just castings of bits of those original kits, often are, with no discernable legal repurcussions.

It's also not unheard of in the miniatures/gaming field for vehicle kits to be originally built from or including parts of model kits.


If the parts being copied were particularly distinctive or proprietry, then I could see how there could possibly be grounds for complaint. But a plain, unadorned skull? I would suspect that it would be barely a blip in the legal radar, if it even registers at all.

You do have a good point with the x-wing fighters utilizing a bunch of tank kits or like you say creating a vehicle using other vehicle parts and from a moral point of view I have no problem with that. So that is one thing, the moral issue of: is it ok to do some kit bashing or combining a bunch of circuit boards and switches saying its a ship cockpit as a one off creation versus casting the same thing and selling as an original design. I mean in both cases you 'made the product,' but you have to look really hard to see the tank flywheel and some of the other parts on an x-wing in the original starwars flicks (I think they removed that stuff in the BS THX remakes) because the designers were working with a limited budget and limited resources because of the time of production they kit bashed models while making a large effort to disguise those bits and pieces.

This is exactly counter to what CH is doing. they are taking bits and peices of their original design along with bits of other pre-existent models to copy the look and feel of the 40k universe. They arent trying to hide it they are emphasizing it.


To me thats were the line is drawn morally, do some one offs great, even maybe cast a few bits for yourself or even a friend but as soon as you go market with them I think thats too far. On, the other hand: Legally, I just don't think (maybe I'm wrong) you can copy, cast, and sell models that you didn't sculpt without the permission of the people who own the model, and maybe thats a small bit (just a skull) but I think its speaks about the whole operation at ChapterHouse. One were you make a green press mold of a bunch of skulls from other kits (look at the ones with tubes coming out of their eyes and think Adminstratum) slap it on some rhino doors imply you sculpted it and sell it for a profit. I definitely don't find it moral business and I just simply don't think it's legal but I'm not a lawyer so...

anyway sorry again about the long post but I find the thread to be fascinating.

Cheers

Ian Sturrock wrote:B. Defendants’ Infringing Conduct

27. Upon information and belief, after having initiated some modest invasions of Syracuse in 264 BC, sometime in or about May 260BC, Chapterhouse began manufacturing and sailing a large navy at its ports located around the Great Green (“the Mediterranean”).

28. Among the products sold by Chapterhouse are “Super Heavy Assault Elephant” products designed and licensed for Chapterhouse by Defendant Hannibal Barca.

29. Upon information and belief, many consumers of Plaintiff’s original ROADS and AQUEDUCTS products and services are users of and make purchases from defendants’, including many such individuals and users in the State of North Africa.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendants as follows:

1. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendants, their agents, representatives, employees, assigns, and suppliers, and all persons acting in concert or privity with them, from
invading over any Alps with any pachyderms, “Super Heavy Assault Elephant” or otherwise;

2. Directing the salting of all pachyderm fields around the offending city to prevent further production of same.

Hilarity, also will be watching the case with interest

:edit: so as not to completely detract from the thread I really think CH hasn't crossed the line with anything they've done except possibly the DOM mini. I recently made a purchase with them and I have to agree with some of the posters, there are a number of their bits that appear substandard or unfinished, but many others and many of the newer bits are of apparently excellent quality (still waiting on my order so I cant personally account for the quality). One more point, Nick really comes across as a but we need people like him to move and shake the world as it were, I know I'm overbearing at times so no personal offence intended

I wonder what goes on in the motor vehicle world. Does everyone have to have the right to make a pattern part for a car? I mean, in a lot of ways this is just like the after market for autos. A hood that is exactly the same, but with scoops. Is that a problem? Do they have to license the part?

It doesn't all transfer across, but there is a lot alike, and you can pretty much do what you wish with your vehicle.

Toreador wrote:I wonder what goes on in the motor vehicle world. Does everyone have to have the right to make a pattern part for a car? I mean, in a lot of ways this is just like the after market for autos. A hood that is exactly the same, but with scoops. Is that a problem? Do they have to license the part?

It doesn't all transfer across, but there is a lot alike, and you can pretty much do what you wish with your vehicle.

From my own admittedly limited research into this (which consisted of calling up a couple of people I know that work with aftermarket parts, and with dealer parts), most aftermarket things are not produced with a license. They can be advertised much like CH products are, as compatible with a specific company's car, but they can't use any of the logos. One thing I was told I found interesting, that sometimes replacement parts not made by the original company are often a different but still compatible size, so perhaps that's something to take into account as to how they operate without a license. I still think it's the strongest similar market comparison to what is going on with GW and third party parts producers, and I'm interested to see what happens with the case in the long run.

Hashshashin wrote:yes I agree that many skulls do appear to be similar, but anyone who plays 40k should know that saying all 28mm skulls are the same as saying that all 28mm heads in power armour are the same, or that a scout head looks like a marine head, but obviously you wouldn't buy replacement pieces from third party companies if they were indeed all the same. it is really easy to make a press molds out of GS and everytime I have done this for personal use the resultant output is always a tiny bit deformed due to how GS acts when removed from a 1-piece mold. Those pics I made literally took only a couple of minutes and maybe show nothing, but the fact the for the most part the two peices share so many qualities I find to be nearly identical including the actual size (which if anyone owns a Berserker squad can attest to the fact that this particular bit is a bit big and weird, hence why it jumped out at me, I quit using this skull bit because it's too big and fugly)

again I was just trying to show what I think is pretty clear, and obviously people can disagree. Ultimately I like companies like CH but I think(based solely on my opinion) that some of their peices have components that (to me) appear to be from GW kits and to me that is out of line to sell those types of kits.

Just my feelings and I am clearly am interested in the outcome of this case and thread.

Cheers

Put it this way. What we have there is a picture of a skull. In a big pile of skulls. The model is quite evidently not identical, I can see minor differences in the shape of the eye and nasal area, as can other people.

But okay. Let's assume here that the skulls aren't dissimilar, and that there is no room for doubt based on the shape of the skull. Here are the other reasons why they wouldn't have done anything along these lines.

1) It's one skull in a lot of skulls. Why would they go to all the effort of recasting a single skull? They have some fairly talented sculptors working for them. When aforementioned sculptor has just sculpted another 30 skulls, why on earth would he say, 'Sorry guys, give me a minute, I'm just gonna go recast this GW skull to squeeze in the corner'. He'd just sculpt another skull.
2) The photo clearly shows it in greenstuff. You do not recast in green stuff. It's simple as that really. You recast in resin, metal, and so on. Greenstuff is not something you can pour into a mould.
3) You could say, 'ah, but the greenstuff could have been sculpted over the original skull!'. But then you have a) why bother recasting then if you've got to do the full detail again? and b) the skull would then be substantially larger as the opposed to the narrow size match you're claiming.

I'm sorry, but when consider the above points along with the fact that just about everyone disagrees with your assumption that the skulls are identical, I think its relatively conclusive evidence that your claim is wrong.

About the only thing you could claim is that he was looking at the GW skull when he started sculpting the piece, in order to better get to grips with the style. So he tried to copy what he saw in that one case in order to improve his own skull sculpting skills. That's believable. But is it illegal, or even morally dubious? I wouldn't think so.

Regnak wrote:Wow... this thread has got.... BIG! Are there any actual updates as to progress of this case? Is there a date where things will get decided?

GW lawyers had the courtesy to file this lawsuit just before Xmas, so no actual update until holidays are over.
And there is NO consensus that GW has a strong case, as other IP cases show at least partial support of what CHS is doing. The case can go either way depending on jury and money and what GW really wants to achieve, IF it reaches court at all.

Regnak wrote:Wow... this thread has got.... BIG! Are there any actual updates as to progress of this case? Is there a date where things will get decided? Maybe this thread should be locked until there is OFFICIAL news rather than a thread full of arguments and accusations. I hate it when the vultures start to circle!

You know, even the two page digression about the skulls has value: it shows roughly how courts and juries look at these things. If you compare some of the posts people have made discussing variances in skull features to the analysis in FASA v. Tomy, they' are pretty similar.

I think we all know more about the underlying law, as well as the available facts, to this case than we did before. Yes, there is some chaff, but why should this be locked? I know I've learned a lot due to this thread.

Polonius wrote:Yes, there is some chaff, but why should this be locked? I know I've learned a lot due to this thread.

Agreed! This thread has been immensely valuable to me as a lesson in IP law.

I'd like to thank Janthkin, Polonius, et al. for providing clear, educated information on the matter.

Gibbsey wrote:Well I've put in a link to the lawsuit, and linked another sites consultation with a lawyer. General consensus (i think) is that GW can make a case of the Trademark infringement

I don't think GW would have filed if it didn't atleast have a basis for complaint, but it has to fight off certain precedants and legally based exceptions to win. You ask any group of lawyers... "Can I sue for...?" and you'll 99.99% of the time get a "yes." Ask it of an issue where money or property is involved, odd of a "yes" go up. Can GW "make the case"? Only to the detriment of industries that rely on the legal exceptions that GW would have to defeat.

Ketara wrote:

Put it this way. What we have there is a picture of a skull. In a big pile of skulls. The model is quite evidently not identical, I can see minor differences in the shape of the eye and nasal area, as can other people.

But okay. Let's assume here that the skulls aren't dissimilar, and that there is no room for doubt based on the shape of the skull. Here are the other reasons why they wouldn't have done anything along these lines.

1) It's one skull in a lot of skulls. Why would they go to all the effort of recasting a single skull? They have some fairly talented sculptors working for them. When aforementioned sculptor has just sculpted another 30 skulls, why on earth would he say, 'Sorry guys, give me a minute, I'm just gonna go recast this GW skull to squeeze in the corner'. He'd just sculpt another skull.

Obviously if one skull is recast, they all would be, maybe with some minor modifications. The eye worm things for instance. There's not a lot of evidence to me that they have fairly talented sculptors working for them. With the exception of the big mech thing, and maybe some of the tyranid stuff, the skulls on that kit are distinctly professional looking in a sea of pretty amateur work. Maybe they have a guy who's only really good at skulls I guess.

Ketara wrote:
2) The photo clearly shows it in greenstuff. You do not recast in green stuff. It's simple as that really. You recast in resin, metal, and so on. Greenstuff is not something you can pour into a mould.
3) You could say, 'ah, but the greenstuff could have been sculpted over the original skull!'. But then you have a) why bother recasting then if you've got to do the full detail again? and b) the skull would then be substantially larger as the opposed to the narrow size match you're claiming.

This is just silly. People recast in green stuff all the time. It's a cheap way to recreate detail and exactly the sort of thing a sculptor might do if he's creating a finished product that will then be recast in resin or metal.

If they recast the skull it's a statement of their character. CH has already tried to deny it.

On the skull issue, I really don't see "it" being identical. I know for a fact it wasn't a recast skull, but I'll humor this line of dialogue because I think there is useful information to be shared.

If the court looked at it, it'd be more as a matter of determining how substantive change was made... you take a tiny generic piece from a tank model... you then cut off the back half.... you are left with something that is less than 1% of the overall "work." Its like copying only the first fraction of an inch of the Mona Lisa's left eyebrow. Its deffinitately an ethical issue, but as a legal one it would be very hard to determine the damage an innocuous little piece might have done.

Next is also the issue that the sculptor is from out of this country. So the legal requirments he had to fulfill in sculpting a "new original work" under that country's law maybe different.

That said, if this came to court, any good lawyer would simply say: "Its a skull. There are only so many ways to sculpt a quality skull at 1/8th of an inch and that this is simply an instance of "independent creation" through the limitation of scale leading to seemingly identical works of a generic design."

Ketara wrote:

Put it this way. What we have there is a picture of a skull. In a big pile of skulls. The model is quite evidently not identical, I can see minor differences in the shape of the eye and nasal area, as can other people.

But okay. Let's assume here that the skulls aren't dissimilar, and that there is no room for doubt based on the shape of the skull. Here are the other reasons why they wouldn't have done anything along these lines.

1) It's one skull in a lot of skulls. Why would they go to all the effort of recasting a single skull? They have some fairly talented sculptors working for them. When aforementioned sculptor has just sculpted another 30 skulls, why on earth would he say, 'Sorry guys, give me a minute, I'm just gonna go recast this GW skull to squeeze in the corner'. He'd just sculpt another skull.
2) The photo clearly shows it in greenstuff. You do not recast in green stuff. It's simple as that really. You recast in resin, metal, and so on. Greenstuff is not something you can pour into a mould.
3) You could say, 'ah, but the greenstuff could have been sculpted over the original skull!'. But then you have a) why bother recasting then if you've got to do the full detail again? and b) the skull would then be substantially larger as the opposed to the narrow size match you're claiming.

I'm sorry, but when consider the above points along with the fact that just about everyone disagrees with your assumption that the skulls are identical, I think its relatively conclusive evidence that your claim is wrong.

About the only thing you could claim is that he was looking at the GW skull when he started sculpting the piece, in order to better get to grips with the style. So he tried to copy what he saw in that one case in order to improve his own skull sculpting skills. That's believable. But is it illegal, or even morally dubious? I wouldn't think so.

I'm not sure I agree with you here. That skull looks remarkably similar. I am not saying it is a copy but it is hard to imagine that it is just two people independently sculpting two skulls. They look very close to each other. I can go to any number of companies that make skeletons look at the skulls and not even come close to thinking they are actually the same model.

And as far as all the other skulls go on that piece they all look like the same base skull that has been modified.

Now having said all that it doesn't necessarily mean they recast a GW part and put it on their rhino doors. They just may have used it for the look and got back something that looks like the original. If that is what happened I don't really see an issue. I mean it is a skull.

These are what I see with those similar skulls...

-The CH piece nasal cavity looks more elongated than the GW piece.

-The left eye cavity looks wider than the GW piece.

-On the CH piece the right eye has less material along the outside edge, and the right brow buldges a little more.

-The cheek droops less into the upper jawline on the CH piece than on the GW one.

-The corner of the left brow seems more pronounced on the CH piece.

-The gaps between teeth on the GW piece appear to be more pronounced than on the CH piece.

So to get this straight... CH supposedly took a GW skull, made a mould from it and left this to harden. Then they took some more greenstuff and pressed it in to make a copy of the skull. Then they stuck this on the model. And that's why it looks dimensionally different to the original and explains the distortion seen more adequately than if CH had just scuplted it themselves.

It's possible I suppose but it seems like a stretch to me. As allegations go it's not got a lot of substance in the evidence presented which seems to boil down to taking a single skull from a load of skulls and then saying that particular one looks similar to another skull assuming you dismiss a bit of distortion.

Why are we back on the skull? I mean unless you can find something concreate then let us know but at the moment... its a skull.

Howard A Treesong wrote:So to get this straight... CH supposedly took a GW skull, made a mould from it and left this to harden. Then they took some more greenstuff and pressed it in to make a copy of the skull. Then they stuck this on the model. And that's why it looks dimensionally different to the original and explains the distortion seen more adequately than if CH had just scuplted it themselves.

Why would anyone do this? Wouldn't it be easier and quicker to sculpt a skull from scratch rather than press mould one and fiddle with the dimensions? Seems a bit far-fetched to me.

filbert wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:So to get this straight... CH supposedly took a GW skull, made a mould from it and left this to harden. Then they took some more greenstuff and pressed it in to make a copy of the skull. Then they stuck this on the model. And that's why it looks dimensionally different to the original and explains the distortion seen more adequately than if CH had just scuplted it themselves.

Why would anyone do this? Wouldn't it be easier and quicker to sculpt a skull from scratch rather than press mould one and fiddle with the dimensions? Seems a bit far-fetched to me.

Dont you know how hard it is to make a human skull model!!!!?!?!?!!

I think that this thread (and the other) has shown that there is some pretty strong negative feelings towards CHS by some posters. It's not surprising that people that feel strongly that CHS has done something wrong would look for evidence to support it. And, in general, no matter what you're looking for, you'll find something to support your point of view. It may not sway others (as I doubt this skull has) but given the subjective nature of appearance, it'll support a pre-determined outcome.

Copyright infringment includes, as one of it's factors, the uniqueness of the original piece. Given the not very unique nature of a human skull (something every artist draws/paints/sculpts during training) even a direct recast would be difficult to show as infringement.

On the other hand, the fact that a single aspect of a single peice is the strongest example of substantial simiilarity thus far presented, it helps CHS make it's case.

If somebody has the time and the energy, it'd be interesting to see side by side comparisons of things like the Farseer or Tervigon.

Polonius wrote:I think that this thread (and the other) has shown that there is some pretty strong negative feelings towards CHS by some posters. It's not surprising that people that feel strongly that CHS has done something wrong would look for evidence to support it. And, in general, no matter what you're looking for, you'll find something to support your point of view. It may not sway others (as I doubt this skull has) but given the subjective nature of appearance, it'll support a pre-determined outcome.

Copyright infringment includes, as one of it's factors, the uniqueness of the original piece. Given the not very unique nature of a human skull (something every artist draws/paints/sculpts during training) even a direct recast would be difficult to show as infringement.

On the other hand, the fact that a single aspect of a single peice is the strongest example of substantial simiilarity thus far presented, it helps CHS make it's case.

If somebody has the time and the energy, it'd be interesting to see side by side comparisons of things like the Farseer or Tervigon.

I recall hearing about how some people apparently avoid infringement with flat figure painting.

Link if anyone isn't familiar with what I mean - http://www.paintingclinic.com/clinic/guestarticles/paintflats.htm

Most pieces are original and historical but there are a lot of things like ranges of Asterix flats and other things obviously cribbed from actual art in Asterix books and the like. But manufacturers tend to apply to some rule of changing a certain percentage of the overall area of the piece when copied from a panel in the comic (it's 30% or something). So they'll alter the belt and and hat and the shoes or whatever so a certain amount of image isn't directly copies from the original art.

Does that actually make any difference? Or is it just that none of the publishers care what these small manufacturers do? If that were so well why even make a diversion from the original art? I've heard that sculptors do make the effort to make differences so they must have something in mind rightly or wrongly.

Polonius wrote:I think that this thread (and the other) has shown that there is some pretty strong negative feelings towards CHS by some posters. It's not surprising that people that feel strongly that CHS has done something wrong would look for evidence to support it. And, in general, no matter what you're looking for, you'll find something to support your point of view. It may not sway others (as I doubt this skull has) but given the subjective nature of appearance, it'll support a pre-determined outcome.

Copyright infringment includes, as one of it's factors, the uniqueness of the original piece. Given the not very unique nature of a human skull (something every artist draws/paints/sculpts during training) even a direct recast would be difficult to show as infringement.

On the other hand, the fact that a single aspect of a single peice is the strongest example of substantial simiilarity thus far presented, it helps CHS make it's case.

If somebody has the time and the energy, it'd be interesting to see side by side comparisons of things like the Farseer or Tervigon.

Hey Polonius thanks for all your awesome input into the thread thus far I have really enjoyed reading it.

I actually didn't come into this thread with any opinion in mind other then seeing the title and thinking: "Gw strikes again, ugh" but then when I went over to their website and just witnessed the presentation of slanging all the GW names around, I thought, well thats pushing it. As I browsed I noticed quite a few pieces that were very similar to many GW bits in posing and substance but were essentially unrecognizable so whatever.*

But when I noticed what I considered to be an essentially unmodified bit lifted right out of a GW kit it made me wonder about at least a couple of their other models and whether they were just doing what modelers do everywhere which is convert green stuff and kit bash. The difference is selling those things, is that legal? Will the outcome of this case determine whether or not people can take a GW kit, slightly modify the bits (10% or whatever the legal minimum is to be considered 'original) cast them and set-up a website and sell them?

And I would love to see their tervigon next to a carnifex as well to just see if they are making new creations or just adding greens and conversions of existing models.

*(ie, the "salamanders PF on their site looks like a slightly modified version of the pointing Chaos PF, basically some scales added and the fingers seem slightly elongated but essentially it appears to be a conversion of a pre-existing GW piece that has been cast not an original made to fit GW)

Gibbsey wrote:

filbert wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:So to get this straight... CH supposedly took a GW skull, made a mould from it and left this to harden. Then they took some more greenstuff and pressed it in to make a copy of the skull. Then they stuck this on the model. And that's why it looks dimensionally different to the original and explains the distortion seen more adequately than if CH had just scuplted it themselves.

Why would anyone do this? Wouldn't it be easier and quicker to sculpt a skull from scratch rather than press mould one and fiddle with the dimensions? Seems a bit far-fetched to me.

Dont you know how hard it is to make a human skull model!!!!?!?!?!!

Actually, I have tried to sculpt skulls, I do it when I have left over bits of green/grey stuff for fun and practice, and its actually a bit more difficult then you would assume to make a really good looking skull. This is why there are so few of them out there IMHO. But making a one piece press mold out of Green Stuff of something like a skull, or anything else that was a plastic bit because they are designed on two flat planes with no undercuts, is super fast and easy. The original sculptor took the limitations of plastic molding into account with his posing and shape of the model, the mold makers took that into account designing the sprues and so on.

The reason making a one piece press mold is so easy is because someone else already did all of the actual planning and work to make it easy for you. Any person regardless of sculpting talent could easily take that skull bit and in about 10 min, with $.25 green stuff, a dap of water based personal lubricant and make you that mold. In 24 hours one could pump out as many flat backed skulls as were needed. Often when removing a one-piece press from its mold it will deform slightly (remember play-doh?) therefore although you could generate a pile of them each one would have subtle deformities to one another, just due to the process. Super simple process modelers do it all the time there are probably tutorials on this site describing how to do this process. Most people just don't normally then mold/cast the whole piece and market them on the internet for the whole world.

Basically I will drop the skull debate because I feel I have put forward what I had to say, but I may still reply to people's comments

Ok just because I want to throw a monkey wrench into the discussion. Where did GW get their design for a skull?
Did they take it from an original human skull (copyright GOD)
Or did they take it from a drawing by DaVinci?
Or from a Greek representation of the Human Bone Structure?

Or did they sculpt it completly based on what they though a Human Skull should look like.

Think about it. Then ignore this post completely.

Hashshashin- I appreciate the effort put into making the comparison pics, but has been said (for several pages) those skulls are not identical. They are sculpted and cast, not kit-bashed. It's pretty obvious from the greens, and even from just comparing the pics...

Da_Viking wrote:Ok just because I want to throw a monkey wrench into the discussion. Where did GW get their design for a skull?
Did they take it from an original human skull (copyright GOD)
Or did they take it from a drawing by DaVinci?
Or from a Greek representation of the Human Bone Structure?

Or did they sculpt it completly based on what they though a Human Skull should look like.

Think about it. Then ignore this post completely.

I'm not sure what your point it. Even though a skull is generic in appearance you can't recast other people's parts and sell them. When a company makes a model of a tank or something they don't own the copyright on (because the appearance of a vehicle is likely held by the real manufacturer) another company can't make their own model and take the short cut of recasting the first company's parts. While say Tamiya don't own the rights to a "sherman tank" they do have the right to prevent people recasting their actual sculpts of the wheels or whatever when releasing their own kit.

So basically... everyone is free to make model skulls and sell them. That's fine. But you can't recast someone else's skulls and sell them, you make your own.