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.

What's wrong with a replacement model? Nobody is forced to buy it. If enough people are buying the alternative/replacement model instead of the original, then the original company is perfectly free to go about and create a miniature that's more in that style. Personally I think it's bizarre to suggest that you should feel obligated to buy a miniature you dislike in order to play a game when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives; if GW decided to put out a new Tyranid that was little more than walking genitals, I'd certainly not want to have to use that particular model just because I want to include a Dentatafex in my army. Replacement models fill a demand that the original company is not meeting.

I can see why the original company might not like this, but I'm not sure why I should care. We're not going to run out of people that want to design new games. We're not going to run out of people that want to sculpt new miniatures. I certainly don't want people to go hungry and without a home, but I'm not terribly concerned with making sure that they can make a living doing some particular task.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
[I created this thread because I realized that I was one of those people getting that thread off topic. I am not trying to burn CHS down, but when I saw the 'lizard-ogres' I was just kinda shocked. I am fine with bits and upgrade sprues, but I'm stil unsure of how to proceed when it comes to selling a replacement model for another company's game.

What gives GWS the god-given, sole, unassailable right to make a generic lizard holding a mace?

 Ouze wrote:

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
[I created this thread because I realized that I was one of those people getting that thread off topic. I am not trying to burn CHS down, but when I saw the 'lizard-ogres' I was just kinda shocked. I am fine with bits and upgrade sprues, but I'm stil unsure of how to proceed when it comes to selling a replacement model for another company's game.

What gives GWS the god-given, sole, unassailable right to make a generic lizard holding a mace?

I am just surprised that anyone could be surprised by a lizard man, ogre size or otherwise holding any weapon at all. I think I have lizard men from at least 25 or 30 different manufacturers holding pretty much any weapon that you can think of and coming in sizes from about 1/2" tall all the way up to about 2" tall. GW no more invented the concept of lizard men who live in jungles then they did...well, the moon.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Respectfully, I disagree. There is no reason to support a status quo where one manufacturer can't post new releases because people can't stop coming in and crapping in it; the answer is not shrugging and saying "ah well, guess they win again".

Well, also, releasing cheap alternatives doesn't shield you from criticism if your cheap alternatives are terrible.

The criticism goes both ways. There's plenty of terrible GW sculpts where the alternatives are superior.

 Ouze wrote:
This thread is timely, because I wanted to respond to something HBMC said in the last CHS thread but it was offtopic.

[snip my quote]

Respectfully, I disagree. There is no reason to support a status quo where one manufacturer can't post new releases because people can't stop coming in and crapping in it; the answer is not shrugging and saying "ah well, guess they win again".

I'm not a huge fan of CHS simply because I'm not really into their sculpts generally (although I did get the Stormraven extension which is great) but the nonsense that happens in their threads every single damn time has got to stop.

Ouze! Ya damned dirty apologist!!!

Actually I do agree with you – it shouldn’t happen that way, and it needs to stop. The thing is that I don’t see it stopping and that’s why I suggested locking it. The battle’s been fought a dozens of times and always ends the same way – red text and a thread lock. I just figured we’d skip to the end as the middle is never fun.

Like you I’m not CHS’s biggest fan. I find a lot of their sculpts to be ‘wonky’ (those Thunder Hammers and early pads especially) and not of the quality I’m used to from other 3rd party manufacturers (mock Hi-Tech Miniature’s over-the-top-ed-ness and Scibor’s press-moulding all you like, their sculpts are perfect!). I also think the hubris they displayed on their original website in the way they labelled their products is what directly resulted in the current court case (if they hadn’t used GM’s product names everywhere they wouldn’t have garnered the attention). Nevertheless, as you said, they shouldn’t be hounded by this sort of moronic nonsense*** in every thread they made. They don’t deserve it and they shouldn’t be singled out as they often are.

At the end of the day there’s nothing wrong with 3rd party miniatures. None of them are saying “We make GW minis” in the way a Chinese “Apple Store” isn’t really an Apple store. If they’re making parts that are similar then so what? There’s no moral quandary for finding alternative products with similar products that aim to meet the same goals.

I don’t see any of these products as “replacements” either. The CHS not-Farseer doesn’t replace the GW Farseers. It’s just another Farseer. I’d buy a CHS Farseer to have an additional and different Farseer model, not as something to buy in place of GW’s Farseers. I’d buy Puppet’s War’s not-Razorback turrets ‘cause I think they look ace, not because I don’t want to get GW’s.

This applies doubly in cases where alternatives don’t exist. GW doesn’t make AdMech models, so my AdMech army is almost entirely 3rd party (except the Tech-Priests and Servitors). Now if some 3rd party group started making Servitors tomorrow that didn’t look like gak I’d probably buy lots of them, not instead of GW’s ones though, but to have models that are different. By the same token I have virtually every single one of Heresy Miniatures trenchcoat gangsters, but not so I don’t have to buy GW’s Delaque models but so I can have more Delaque models that are different. At no point did any of these models ‘replace’ their originals. They simply added to and enhanced the existing ones.

***See what I did there?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
At no point did any of these models ‘replace’ their originals. They simply added to and enhanced the existing ones.

And even if they did, all the better! That's both progress in itself, and motivation for others to do better yet.
Bleedin' feth, that's how we got out of caves and how we're no longer using our 8086 boxes to post this debate on a crappy BBS

I ask myself three questions:

-Is the product being sold something I can use to enhance one of my current armies or something I need for a current project?
-Is the price being asked, after the shipping cost, lower than what I would pay for a comparable GW product?
-Does my buying this product in some small way harm GW by depriving them of a sale?

if the answer to all three questions is "yes" then I'm fine with the purchase of that product. It's the same questions I ask msyelf before buying someting on the second hand market, doing business with known recasters, etc.

On a related note, I feel that the whole issue about using third party products in GW stores/events is largely over-blown and represents yet more "internet fear-mongering". Honestly how close attention do GW staff members pay to armies used in their stores? be honest now. Has any one ever had a GW staffer come and examine their army closely in an effort to sniff out "illegal" (ie non-GW, recasts, etc) miniatures? How many staffers have extensive enough knowlegde of GW's figure lines, past and present, and what is out there in the way of third party figures at any given moment to spot such things?
As an example, I have not played in a GW store for many years, but I used to slip in an old Engima Miniatures (the old Enigma that used to produce GW knock-offs from the later '90s, not the current company) "Space Marine" figure that had been painted to match my exsiting army into the mix just to see if anyone would notice and as a quiet little "eff you" to GW's "Only use our toys" policy. no one ever noticed...despite the fact that the Enigma miniature was a poor knock-off. Much the same could be said about third party figures and bits in today's world.

TR

Well, in my local, you can't turn around without having a GW staffer hovering at your shoulder (because the store is soooo small, they have to be to get around the store.

They also tend to notice conversions (not so au fait on the older GW sculpts though. I've been called out on having some "non-GW" stuff by a younger staffer (they're all younger than me).

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Why does it matter what models you use to play a game? Only GW insist you use their models with their games, and that's because they are a business. What you do outside their shops doesn't matter.

Looking at your steps 2-3 in particular... the idea that as a customer if you buy a ruleset you are somehow duty bound to buy only their models to use with it, is the most bizarre of thoughts. You're not 'taking revenue away' from them and 'hurting them', you've just bought their rules. What you do with them is your own business, you don't owe them some ongoing contract. Hell, by buying someone else's models you're spreading the wealth around and supporting the wider industry. Maybe you'll pay GW back some day by using their models with someone else's ruleset if it makes you feel better. It doesn't matter one jot if you use different models in your army to those supplied by GW, whether they're released specific figures or not to match their rules.

I didn't worry about playing with all my toys together when I was a kid. I imagine that Barbie has teamed up with Action Man many times in homes everywhere without any issues about them being made separately by Mattel and Hasbro. Why should people care because they're adults? Don't turn GW into a fashion label, it doesn't matter if you mix and match their models with others and play with any old set of rules. Do you think military modellers think twice about kitbashing models from two different companies together? Of course not.

This 'GW purity' thing is something most strongly expressed among GW players I find, and it makes very little sense unless you specifically want to play in their shops. Divorce the idea of choosing a preferred wargames rule set from your preferred choice of wargames figures, the two need not be linked. You don't owe GW loyalty for buying their ruleset and you're not hurting them by buying someone else's toys.

Completely agree, although I think generally it's something that is a little stronger on the internet than you will find in most clubs/FLGS. At least in my area it's rare to find a WFB that doesn't have some Mantic 'filler' in it somewhere, even entire units (people fielding undead especially, using the zombies and ghouls). And with absolutely zero criticism, you are more likely to be praised for getting an army together for a bargain.

I'm not sure why there is this form of almost 'GW only' elitism (although it is thankfully not the majority opinion) - if you play historical games for instance, its extremely rare to find someone playing FoW without at least some models from another manufacturer in their force. Perhaps it's because of the price of some GW minis, people who have paid that money then feel resentment that someone using other models (regardless of quality/sculpting issues) is taking part in the same game without having to make the outlay? Who knows, I'm sure there are all kinds of psychological issues and misconceptions at play here.

I live in Australia. On average, Games Workshop stuff costs 25%-50% more here than it does anywhere else. For my first few years of wargaming, I bought at their prices, but the internet made me realise how much I was being ripped off by. So I said- "Stuff you, GW" and now i almost exclusively use third party models, and if i use GW models, I acquire them second hand through ebay. I still play with GW rules, since they are all that I have known, but my Norscan army (Grim Squeaker's fandex, that is) is made up mostly using Warlord Games Celt's and Gripping Beast Vikings.

Of course, I dont plan on taking them into a GW anytime soon.

Don't know why the Lizard Ogres crossed the line. Reaper http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/reptus and, in old times, RAFM, made complete Lizardmen armies.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Don't know why the Lizard Ogres crossed the line. Reaper http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/reptus and, in old times, RAFM, made complete Lizardmen armies.

As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.

Except that they also make things like this: http://www.reapermini.com/OnlineStore/lizardman/sku-down/06050

Which are not for Warlord, they probably could be used, but they don't come with the stat cards, and are just generic fantasy miniatures. The most probably reason for those lizardmen? For us in a dnd game, which uses Wizard's game and rules.

This idea that it's somehow wrong for a figure manufacturer to make a miniature for use with some other company's rules is just nonsense. The majority of miniature manufacturers do this. Reaper makes for D&D/RPGs which they don't publish. The vast majority of historical producers don't even make rules.

In fact, it's actually *better* when miniatures and rules are not made by the same company because then the rules and the miniatures have to stand on their own merits.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
If you are playing in a company's store, like GW, you should honor their rules about 75% having to be GW. Your playing is a form of advertisement for them, and that's your 'charge' to play in the store. In any FLGS, your game, your models, your choice. You can use any models you want, third party or otherwise. If I played in GW, I would honor their requests so they can sell models. If I play in any FLGS, I'll use third party minis because I don't need to advertise for GW and there is no line between right and wrong.

^This.

Regulations. You want to play in GWs yard, you play by their rules. If this means you don't buy, or you purchase just a little, from 3rd party sources then that is what you do. But if GW events mean nothing to you, then don't worry about it.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Why does it matter what models you use to play a game? Only GW insist you use their models with their games, and that's because they are a business. What you do outside their shops doesn't matter.

PP's tournaments, reputedly, have a "Only PP models" rule.
Flames of War has a "Only Battlefront models" rule for their official events as well from my understanding.

Of the two, FOW is the only one where it really matters since there isn't some guy in a garage making Not Warjacks.

This 'GW purity' thing is something most strongly expressed among GW players I find, and it makes very little sense unless you specifically want to play in their shops. Divorce the idea of choosing a preferred wargames rule set from your preferred choice of wargames figures, the two need not be linked. You don't owe GW loyalty for buying their ruleset and you're not hurting them by buying someone else's toys.

Or if you want a certain aesthetic, or if you want to do a campaign game, etc.

I have no problems with people using other company's models in friendly games. But when it comes to a tournament setting and the individual is known for jumping codices but never replacing their "Discount Brand Space Mans"--it becomes a very different ballgame, in my opinion.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Don't know why the Lizard Ogres crossed the line. Reaper http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/reptus and, in old times, RAFM, made complete Lizardmen armies.

As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.

I call bs.

A generic lizardman with a weapon is a generic lizardman with a weapon. Why do you think that Reaper sells so many of these? People just like painting lizardmen? No, for Dungeons and Dragons, or Fantasy Warhammer, and other RPGs or table-top games. All of these are games that Reaper doesn't make. Take a look at their miniature line and you are reading through a who's who from the D&D monster manuals and nearly every class/race combination available.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Don't know why the Lizard Ogres crossed the line. Reaper http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/reptus and, in old times, RAFM, made complete Lizardmen armies.

As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.

You are seriously blowing my mind.

http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/Dark%20Heaven%20Legends%20lizard
http://otherworldminiatures.co.uk/?s=lizard&post_type=product&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
http://trollforged.com/shelf_fantasy_Lizardmen.html
http://cavalcadewargames.com/cavalcade/Dragonblood_Draconid_Legion.html
http://trollforged.com/shelf_fantasy_Fishmen.html
http://www.artemisblacks.com/dragonrune/komodons.shtml

Moronic Nonsense wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Don't know why the Lizard Ogres crossed the line. Reaper http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/reptus and, in old times, RAFM, made complete Lizardmen armies.

As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.

Your argument really is floundering here.

Most minis are made to fit around different game systems.

If you are looking at lack of originality, then look no further than GW who have virtually dumped their game systems (and at the moment refuse to pursue different flavours) other than 40k and WHFB and rehash the same product over and over and over. 3rd party makers are satisfying a small niche with their wares, with items that fit the aesthetics of GW 's game ranges. Sure, a lot cannot be used for anything else but games like 40k but the majority of mini production is built around creating minis that appeal to gamers and hobbyists who will use the minis in any way they see fit.

YMMV as I buy minis on their utility (in different game systems) and attractiveness.

 judgedoug wrote:

Moronic Nonsense wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Don't know why the Lizard Ogres crossed the line. Reaper http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/reptus and, in old times, RAFM, made complete Lizardmen armies.

As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.

You are seriously blowing my mind.

http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/Dark%20Heaven%20Legends%20lizard
http://otherworldminiatures.co.uk/?s=lizard&post_type=product&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
http://trollforged.com/shelf_fantasy_Lizardmen.html
http://cavalcadewargames.com/cavalcade/Dragonblood_Draconid_Legion.html
http://trollforged.com/shelf_fantasy_Fishmen.html
http://www.artemisblacks.com/dragonrune/komodons.shtml

Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
I don't know all of these examples, but thanks for pointing them out to me. I might actually get some of these for use in some other games I play.

General statement to everyone here: I made this thread not to argue GW vs everybody else, but so we could discuss what everyone thinks of 3rd party models. So if you have something to add, maybe your opionion on what should and shouldn't be allowed by third party companies, go ahead. If all you have is GW hate or just overall negative words, then please leave.
This is an issue that covers more than just GW. I know other games are growing in popularity (warmahordes, malifaux, . . . I'm sure ya'll can list more). As those other games get bigger, they will have to start dealing with their own 3rd party companies issues.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Don't know why the Lizard Ogres crossed the line. Reaper http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/reptus and, in old times, RAFM, made complete Lizardmen armies.

As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.

I've got a mental image of you standing in a games store with a miniature in your hands just staring at it for hours trying to decide if the manufacturer made a "legit" miniature, or if they secretly "intended" it to be used with another company's game.

What if it was made for another game but then sometime later the company made their own game? What if it's made for another game that you've never heard of, but you want to buy it for Warhammer - is it ok then? What happens if you just 'think' it's made for another game system and in, fact it was sculpted long before that system was invented?

What complicated imaginary moral hoops you must jump through...

 Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

Moronic Nonsense wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Don't know why the Lizard Ogres crossed the line. Reaper http://www.reapermini.com/Miniatures/reptus and, in old times, RAFM, made complete Lizardmen armies.

As I've said before, if models were made for another game system (the reptus minis) then I think it is ok. I draw the line when models are made for no reason other than to fit into a different company's game.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there other than the 'not-kroxigors', but that is the example I used.

I've got a mental image of you standing in a games store with a miniature in your hands just staring at it for hours trying to decide if the manufacturer made a "legit" miniature, or if they secretly "intended" it to be used with another company's game.

What if it was made for another game but then sometime later the company made their own game? What if it's made for another game that you've never heard of, but you want to buy it for Warhammer - is it ok then? What happens if you just 'think' it's made for another game system and in, fact it was sculpted long before that system was invented?

What complicated imaginary moral hoops you must jump through...

I like to support the company that I play the game of. So GW, makes a game I love playing, I buy their models in support of them. There are a few things they lack, and I do have some models and bits from other companies. I just wanted to see what others thought.

 ProtoClone wrote:
Regulations. You want to play in GWs yard, you play by their rules.

Yeah I really don't think anyone's disputing that.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
I don't know all of these examples, but thanks for pointing them out to me. I might actually get some of these for use in some other games I play.

General statement to everyone here: I made this thread not to argue GW vs everybody else, but so we could discuss what everyone thinks of 3rd party models. So if you have something to add, maybe your opionion on what should and shouldn't be allowed by third party companies, go ahead. If all you have is GW hate or just overall negative words, then please leave.
This is an issue that covers more than just GW. I know other games are growing in popularity (warmahordes, malifaux, . . . I'm sure ya'll can list more). As those other games get bigger, they will have to start dealing with their own 3rd party companies issues.

So you're not okay with all of the reaper minis that were produced for DnD or Pathfinder, or any other generic fantasy RPG game? This isn't just about a GW thing yes we can clearly see where your dog lies in this fight, but at the same time you keep telling us over and over that you're not okay with 3rd party miniatures unless there are game rules to accompany them. Well, Wizards of the Coast doesn't produce miniatures very much anymore. If I want to play 4th edition DnD (let's face it, no one wants that), then by your stance on this situation, I'm only allowed to play with their heavy card board tokens. I can't simply use Reaper's minis because they're not for Reaper's own game. Can I use the official Pathfinder minis made by Reaper in Wizard's DnD?

As to these other games like Warmchine/Hordes and Malifaux, they most likely won't have that issue, even if they get bigger. Wyrd releases 1 book a year and from that point till the beginning of next year (they release at GenCon, so from GenCon to GenCon), they stagger their releases. Book 3 came out in 2011 and the Avatar model for C. Hoffman is supposed to be out this last month or sometime this month (that's over a year) and yet no one is scrambling to third party minis makers for their unreleased models.

 Alfndrate wrote:

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.
I don't know all of these examples, but thanks for pointing them out to me. I might actually get some of these for use in some other games I play.

General statement to everyone here: I made this thread not to argue GW vs everybody else, but so we could discuss what everyone thinks of 3rd party models. So if you have something to add, maybe your opionion on what should and shouldn't be allowed by third party companies, go ahead. If all you have is GW hate or just overall negative words, then please leave.
This is an issue that covers more than just GW. I know other games are growing in popularity (warmahordes, malifaux, . . . I'm sure ya'll can list more). As those other games get bigger, they will have to start dealing with their own 3rd party companies issues.

So you're not okay with all of the reaper minis that were produced for DnD or Pathfinder, or any other generic fantasy RPG game? This isn't just about a GW thing yes we can clearly see where your dog lies in this fight, but at the same time you keep telling us over and over that you're not okay with 3rd party miniatures unless there are game rules to accompany them. Well, Wizards of the Coast doesn't produce miniatures very much anymore. If I want to play 4th edition DnD (let's face it, no one wants that), then by your stance on this situation, I'm only allowed to play with their heavy card board tokens. I can't simply use Reaper's minis because they're not for Reaper's own game. Can I use the official Pathfinder minis made by Reaper in Wizard's DnD?

As to these other games like Warmchine/Hordes and Malifaux, they most likely won't have that issue, even if they get bigger. Wyrd releases 1 book a year and from that point till the beginning of next year (they release at GenCon, so from GenCon to GenCon), they stagger their releases. Book 3 came out in 2011 and the Avatar model for C. Hoffman is supposed to be out this last month or sometime this month (that's over a year) and yet no one is scrambling to third party minis makers for their unreleased models.

As I stated in the begining, In the case of unreleased models or a game that has no models, I am completely ok with getting the models from anywhere. As there are no originals to copy.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.

My buddy is sculpting a giant, and it's coming along fantastically. He plans on casting it up, or having someone cast it, to sell.
By your own definition, you are not okay with him selling his creation because someone could maybe use it for Warhammer?

Clearly your friend should be hung drawn and quartered!

 judgedoug wrote:

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.

My buddy is sculpting a giant, and it's coming along fantastically. He plans on casting it up, or having someone cast it, to sell.
By your own definition, you are not okay with him selling his creation because someone could maybe use it for Warhammer?

That is the gray area of ethics I'm trying to understand here. I aplaud his efforts, and I'd like to see it succeed, but I'm just unsure of how to market it without infringing on other peoples/companies work.

Moronic Nonsense wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

Moronic Nonsense wrote:
Cool lots of lizards. Some of those were made for their own game, I'm fine with that. Some of those were made as replacements, I'm not ok with that.

My buddy is sculpting a giant, and it's coming along fantastically. He plans on casting it up, or having someone cast it, to sell.
By your own definition, you are not okay with him selling his creation because someone could maybe use it for Warhammer?

That is the gray area of ethics I'm trying to understand here. I aplaud his efforts, and I'd like to see it succeed, but I'm just unsure of how to market it without infringing on other peoples/companies work.

Okay, but _whose_ work?

He's directly made it from his own imagination, using sculpey and green stuff and wire armatures.

other people or companies who have already made something similar.