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.

Design your own tanks which fit the 40k aesthetic and you will do better.

 Peregrine wrote:
One small warning here: you're blatantly copying GW IP for profit, so as soon as you become successful enough to get any attention you're going to be facing legal action from GW and it will be completely one-sided case where your only option is to immediately and without question do everything GW demands (which will include ceasing all production, destroying your molds, etc) and you'll be lucky to escape financial penalties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
So when advertising begins, expect different names.

Do you honestly expect GW's lawyers (or the court, if you're foolish enough to refuse to settle out of court in a case where you're so obviously wrong) to be fooled by that? If you do, you're incredibly idealistic and going to be in for a harsh surprise if you ever succeed at selling a significant number of these.

im no expert but he should be ok if he alters the designs a bit and avoids using GW bits, names or iconography right?

it seems to me that GW just ripped off battletech/mechwarrior designs for their "titans" anyways.

kb305 wrote:
im no expert but he should be ok if he alters the designs a bit and avoids using GW bits, names or iconography right?

That depends on the degree of modification.

"Altering" the model by moving the precise placement of the rivets around a bit while keeping the exact same shape/details/etc and making it perfectly obvious that you're creating a copy of the GW model is illegal, and the court isn't going to be fooled by such a flimsy attempt to pretend it's a new design.

Altering the design to create a distinctly new design with a similar concept (for example, WWI-style tanks like IG) and weapons/equipment that could plausibly count as something in GW's rules is ok, but the key is substantial modifications. If you put the two side by side they need to be clearly distinct designs.

Unfortunately the first option is what the OP is doing, as demonstrated by the scratchbuilt Baneblades that are the exact same design as the GW kit, the open use of GW names and desire to sell scratchbuilt copies of GW designs, etc. This is illegal and the only question is whether the OP will succeed well enough to get GW's attention and get shut down and/or sued.

it seems to me that GW just ripped off battletech/mechwarrior designs for their "titans" anyways.

Maybe in the general style of the models, but not in the specifics. If you put a GW titan next to a Battletech walker they're very obviously two different designs based on a common theme, not an attempt to make as close of a copy as possible of the other company's design.

Yeah, in this instance 'scratchbuilt' is a pseudonym for 'counterfeit'

Personally I like scratch built stuff AND will pay for it as long as it's sturdy (within reason).. I refuse to pay 550$ for a warhound, but I will buy 3 good scratch built ones for that price.

My collection of titans prove that!

To the OP: If you can make high quality warhound or reavers send me a PM and I'm probably interested (However, I am concerned about the material used..I dont want them to break easy)

Gamesworkshop's copyright says there can be no use of names, races, insignia, ect. However, how many models of cars are there on the planet? Can Ford copyright the words "car" and "truck"? No way. These are legitiment nouns used to describe what they are, reguardless of how similar models are to eachother. Now if i made a car and called it a corvette I would be infringing copyright law because corvette is really a pronoun. So why is the word "tank" any different? Modifications are completly unnecessary. As long as I do not advertise my product with the copyrighted names or symbols of GW there is no laws being broken. My materials, my method of assembly, the scale of my buisness, and the production rate are all different. Im not molding thousands of products out of plastic. How do you think independent and custom bit sites got started? Comparing a space marine to "armored warrior" is nothing more than a synonym. So a warhound and a "wardog" are the same way. Hell, I could name it a "giant robot". If there is no infringment in advertisment, there is no reason I could be forced to stop production and sales.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I just got a friggin atourney to verify this later tonight.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
So a warhound and a "wardog" are the same way. Hell, I could name it a "giant robot". If there is no infringment in advertisment, there is no reason I could be forced to stop production and sales.

I think you need to step back a bit because you're getting a bit bullish about this and starting to sound a bit of a dick. You can't just change the name and then craft something almost dimensionally identical to what GW already make and think you're in the clear. There's more to copyright than just a name, you won't be able to churn out Warhound duplicates in plastic card and call them 'Wardogs' and be untouchable. GW don't own generic terms, but they do have rights over the specific shape of their tanks and titans. And you've started a thread on the internet saying in plain terms that you intend to copy their stuff and sell it by another name, which could be used against you later on.

Best thing if you do this is to just take on individual commissions, and do it all on a personal level though emails and phone, take jobs at the speed you can comfortably manage them. Other people take commissions on scratchbuilt models, just as some take commissions on painting. They don't turn it into a business and keep it small scale and informal. I think you're best off sticking to the large stuff, there's a lot of work involved in scratchbuilding small tanks only to sell them for as little as $10-15. A few big jobs like titans are much more worth your time, and people are likely to be more interested. But don't be a smart ass about it and think that you can parade your scratchbuilt copies around with only a cheeky name change to protect you from GW lawyers.

I would stay clear of the Warhound as well, for another reason: DreamForge is about to hit the shelves with a fully poseable plastic unit for about the same price or lower.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
How do you think independent and custom bit sites got started?

By making things that are different models. This is the part that you're missing, those third-party sites are selling things that are clearly meant to be used in 40k, but they're distinctly different designs. Yes, they're based on a common theme ("WWI-style tank with a giant gun", "futuristic soldier with laser rifle", etc), but it's their own take on the theme, not just a 1:1 copy of the GW kit. All of the people selling exact copies of GW kits are breaking the law by selling recasts and are only still in business because they operate out of countries with no meaningful IP enforcement.

And I just got a friggin atourney to verify this later tonight.

Have fun with that. And I hope you found someone who is an expert in IP law, otherwise it's going to be pretty funny when "but my traffic lawyer said I was safe" excuse doesn't hold up in court.

Bullish and a dick? Not really. These templates I use have been on the internet for years. if Gw didnt like it, they would have had them taken down. And yes, they own the shapes of their models. But im not making replicas here. They arent carbon copies. Curved parts are straight, even large ones. Detail is in lower amounts, sometimes even changing the shape. The material is nowhere near GW's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Theres no chance of mass production anyways. Private commissions would be my only way, and preferred way to sell.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
These templates I use have been on the internet for years. if Gw didnt like it, they would have had them taken down.

They don't do it for three reasons:

1) It's impossible to do it, since there's no single target. It's just like how GW can't get rid of pirated codex pdfs, there's no centralized source to shut down, and if they sue one host for the files they'll all just show up on another host 15 minutes later. Even if it isn't legal GW just has to accept the practical issues with enforcing the law and let it go. You, on the other hand, would be a single target that can be identified and sued.

2) The people distributing templates aren't doing it for profit. It's a lot easier to punish IP theft when the target is doing it for personal gain instead of as a helpful service to a niche element of the hobby. You, on the other hand, are obviously doing this to make money.

3) The templates aren't complete models. They're a guide to making your own models that probably look like the GW kit in the end, but it's just a slightly more convenient tool than just taking a bunch of pictures of a GW kit and building your own (like some people already do). You, on the other hand, would be selling a complete model.

And yes, they own the shapes of their models. But im not making replicas here. They arent carbon copies. Curved parts are straight, even large ones. Detail is in lower amounts, sometimes even changing the shape. The material is nowhere near GW's.

Nonsense. Look at your own picture. That's obviously a Baneblade, and the only superficial differences seem to be due to your lack of skill at scratchbuilding complex parts. If you're foolish enough to ignore GW's cease and desist order then the court is going to state the obvious: you made a Baneblade. And it's going to be even easier when GW introduces this thread as evidence and shows that your intent from the beginning was to duplicate GW's models.

'Tracing' and 'reverse engineering' fall under derivative works for copyright infringement.

GW treats scratchbuilds like 'fanart'. Technically illegal but until someone makes a business model off it, they ignore it.

Many of the templates out there were directly taken from the 3d models in the 40k video games which make them derivative works so unless you are making your own templates off your own effort, you are already on shaky ground as someone cannot take a template from a copyrighted 3d model and make it public domain if he doesn't own the original source.

You would be better making your own original tanks based off your own original templates if you wanted to turn this into a real business. You could even sell your templates if they were unique tanks and make more money with less effort where you could sell the template for 2$ but build it for someone for 20$

Unless you have a lawyer on retainer, then you did not speak to a lawyer and did not get legal advice. Most lawyers won't actually give you advice so they don't fall under malpractice if you get in trouble. So your 'I spoke with a lawyer who said I am fine' is either a lie or delusion and not at all protecting you.

If you want to go for it... then push the envelope! go for it! Your scratchbuilds based upon that fuzzy picture and spraypaint (paint hides modeling sins) is not evidence of 'high quality' scratch builds. Point out your thread showing your build process, structure building and materials and maybe people will see 'high quality'. Those banebades are not bad, but they are not at all 'high quality' and there are dozens of internet scratchbuilders which put those to shame.

The effort and materials to turn your 'ok' builds into 'high quality' will blow the doors of your pricing model and basically result in you burning out your time on minimal reward or your price being the same or more than the real thing, which means the market is only valuable for large models where it is a deep discount or unique models like custom ork models or converted stuff like chibi-hawks and such.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
These templates I use have been on the internet for years. if Gw didnt like it, they would have had them taken down.

They don't do it for three reasons:

1) It's impossible to do it, since there's no single target. It's just like how GW can't get rid of pirated codex pdfs, there's no centralized source to shut down, and if they sue one host for the files they'll all just show up on another host 15 minutes later. Even if it isn't legal GW just has to accept the practical issues with enforcing the law and let it go. You, on the other hand, would be a single target that can be identified and sued.

2) The people distributing templates aren't doing it for profit. It's a lot easier to punish IP theft when the target is doing it for personal gain instead of as a helpful service to a niche element of the hobby. You, on the other hand, are obviously doing this to make money.

3) The templates aren't complete models. They're a guide to making your own models that probably look like the GW kit in the end, but it's just a slightly more convenient tool than just taking a bunch of pictures of a GW kit and building your own (like some people already do). You, on the other hand, would be selling a complete model.

You are incorrect in thinking the templetes infringe copyright. From UNESCO...

What is the object of copyright protection?
Copyright protects literary and artistic works by offering a range of exclusive
and non-excusive rights to their authors. To be protected, a work has to be
more than a mere idea. The distinction between protected works and ideas
lies at the very heart of copyright law. T he protection of a given work applies
to the expressions of ideas that are contained therein. Accordingly, in order
for copyright in a work to be infringed or violated, one has to copy the form
in which the ideas are expressed. The mere use of ideas found in a work
does not represent a copyright violation. For example, the author who has
written an article on how to build a boat will be protected against the making
and selling of copies of the article (i.e. the expression) without his or her
consent. However, copyright protection cannot prevent anyone from using
the instructions (i.e. the idea) contained within the article in order to build a
boat, neither to wri te another article on the same subject, without copying
the first one.

I remember when I was young there was a popular expensive toy called Tracey island based from the Thunderbirds show. On the UK kids TV show Bluepeter they showed you how to make your own out of yogurt pots and paper mache etc. Long story short, nobody got sued.

 Glorioski wrote:
I remember when I was young there was a popular expensive toy called Tracey island based from the Thunderbirds show. On the UK kids TV show Bluepeter they showed you how to make your own out of yogurt pots and paper mache etc. Long story short, nobody got sued.

There's a significant difference between giving kids a craft project that somewhat resembles the real thing (since a kid making something out of yogurt pots and paper mache isn't going to come even close to an exact copy) and templates to make an exact copy, especially if those templates are built from illegal copies of the 3d models from a game. So:

Making a blog post showing how you can take a small cardboard box, cut the front at 45* angle, and draw some space marine symbols on the side and call it a Rhino: legal.

Copying the DoW game files, editing the models to unwrap them, adding copies of the texture files, and putting the result up on the internet for everyone to download: not legal.


And of course I did say that the for free "how to make your own Rhino" templates are different from the OP's plan to make exact copies of the models and then sell them for profit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:
I remember when I was young there was a popular expensive toy called Tracey island based from the Thunderbirds show. On the UK kids TV show Bluepeter they showed you how to make your own out of yogurt pots and paper mache etc. Long story short, nobody got sued.

There's a significant difference between giving kids a craft project that somewhat resembles the real thing (since a kid making something out of yogurt pots and paper mache isn't going to come even close to an exact copy) and templates to make an exact copy

The principle is entirely the same.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:
I remember when I was young there was a popular expensive toy called Tracey island based from the Thunderbirds show. On the UK kids TV show Bluepeter they showed you how to make your own out of yogurt pots and paper mache etc. Long story short, nobody got sued.

There's a significant difference between giving kids a craft project that somewhat resembles the real thing (since a kid making something out of yogurt pots and paper mache isn't going to come even close to an exact copy) and templates to make an exact copy, especially if those templates are built from illegal copies of the 3d models from a game. So:

Making a blog post showing how you can take a small cardboard box, cut the front at 45* angle, and draw some space marine symbols on the side and call it a Rhino: legal.

Copying the DoW game files, editing the models to unwrap them, adding copies of the texture files, and putting the result up on the internet for everyone to download: not legal.


And of course I did say that the for free "how to make your own Rhino" templates are different from the OP's plan to make exact copies of the models and then sell them for profit.

That is an insult to Eli - all of the templates he has produces (well over 100 of them) have been created from scratch. They are not ripped from game files, a large portion of them do not even exist in any video game (both the custom things like his alternative Leman Russ tanks to various super heavies that are not part of the existing games).

One thing which you also miss is that in fact, if an article in a magazine (say like the Baneblade in WD132) and I use those instructions to create a Baneblade - I can sell that Baneblade. I can then create another...even 100 more and sell them.

The issue of whether or not the original template file that Eli creates is a derivative work of GW's physical model is an issue which GW would need to address with him. The model created from that template though - it can be bought and sold independent of what GW or anyone else believes. The law is very clear on this issue (in fact an almost identical example is given in the quoted text above).

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

The issue of whether or not the original template file that Eli creates is a derivative work of GW's physical model is an issue which GW would need to address with him. The model created from that template though - it can be bought and sold independent of what GW or anyone else believes. The law is very clear on this issue (in fact an almost identical example is given in the quoted text above).

Derivative work of derivative work doesn't make it legal... May make it harder to prove but it is still a 'legal fight' should GW care to do something about it.

 Glorioski wrote:
The principle is entirely the same.

No it isn't. One is a craft project for kids, one is a replacement for a product, and one is a replacement for a product being sold for profit. All three fall under the uselessly broad term "copy", but the purposes and quality of them are entirely different.

The principle is to replicate an on sale product and is the same in each example. The level of replication is of no consequence in regard to copyright law.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
The model created from that template though - it can be bought and sold independent of what GW or anyone else believes.

That depends on the purpose of the sale.

Selling your 40k collection, which happens to include a scratchbuilt Baneblade? Fine.

Starting a business producing scratchbuild Baneblades with the explicit intent to make a profit from selling copies of GW IP? Not fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Glorioski wrote:
The principle is to replicate an on sale product and is the same in each example. The level of replication is of no consequence in regard to copyright law.

Only if the judge is an idiot and can't tell the difference between a child's "copy" and a precise duplicate of the original that is almost indistinguishable from the real model once both are assembled and painted.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:
The principle is to replicate an on sale product and is the same in each example. The level of replication is of no consequence in regard to copyright law.

Only if the judge is an idiot and can't tell the difference between a child's "copy" and a precise duplicate of the original that is almost indistinguishable from the real model once both are assembled and painted.

So essentially in your court of law if the guy getting sued for his templates to make GW models with pleads that they are only supposed to be used in potato shaping projects by childrenl he gets to go free? No the law is more black and white than that.

 Glorioski wrote:
So essentially in your court of law if the guy getting sued for his templates to make GW models with pleads that they are only supposed to be used in potato shaping projects by childrenl he gets to go free? No the law is more black and white than that.

Again, only if the judge is an idiot and can't tell the difference between a legitimate child's craft project and a person who is pretending to be making one to escape prosecution. Real life is not a movie, you don't get out of a lawsuit by finding some loophole that goes against all common sense.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:
So essentially in your court of law if the guy getting sued for his templates to make GW models with pleads that they are only supposed to be used in potato shaping projects by childrenl he gets to go free? No the law is more black and white than that.

Again, only if the judge is an idiot and can't tell the difference between a legitimate child's craft project and a person who is pretending to be making one to escape prosecution. Real life is not a movie, you don't get out of a lawsuit by finding some loophole that goes against all common sense.

Oh it certainly would go against common sense.Since in your example your going to have to have two laws. One which states creating how to guides on how to make copyrighted products are illegal and another which says it's alright if it's just for a childs project. The fact is neither exists.

There's no reason the OP cannot make a baneblade like tank that can be customized by customers with GW parts to make something that fits in-universe.
Anything not specific to GW is barred from official events anyway so this wont effect people building up tournament armies.
The OP is providing those who play informally and who model a chance to have something that more approximates the GW version, or even adds variety to an existing collection.
Let all the "IP lawyers" in this thread take a running jump. I doubt any of you have actual legal experience and are simply parroting the naysayers that infest the net.
To the OP, you might also want to look at the scenery market such as wrecked vehicles, generators, large containers etc as well as turret type gun emplacements.

One piece of advice:

Read up on all the legal stuff between Chapterhouse Studios and GW. Pay careful attention to the items that are at issue: ranging from iconography to the shape of a shoulder pad. Then consider how deep your pockets are for legal representation.

To answer your question: There is very little market for what you are doing and certainly not enough of a market to justify the legal situation you will find yourself in.

You've certainly done a good job using card board or what not but at the end of the day, the number of people willing to pay 30% of retail for a knock off isn't that great.

Consider this: I can buy a regular chimera for $28 (25% off of retail). Or I can pay you $15... At that point you are 1/2 retail for something that is likely more prone to wear and tear.

Looking at titans on the other end: Buying a FW titan is almost a right of passage. Building your own is at the same personal ownership level. Paying $300 for someone else to build one ... not so much.

clively wrote:

Looking at titans on the other end: Buying a FW titan is almost a right of passage. Building your own is at the same personal ownership level. Paying $300 for someone else to build one ... not so much.

Oh I believe there is a market for custom titans... The problem is the ones people are willing to pay for often require 50+ hours of construction, use substantial materials mostly plasticard, casted parts and PVC pipes and usually the materials and time almost rival the cost of the real thing.

When you make it yourself, your time is yours. When you sell it, you expect to be compensated for your time.

If someone is going to shell over 100$+ for a scratch-build, you better have a really good resume which includes an 80+ page build thread which inspires confidence in the end product.

cadbren wrote:
There's no reason the OP cannot make a baneblade like tank that can be customized by customers with GW parts to make something that fits in-universe.
Anything not specific to GW is barred from official events anyway so this wont effect people building up tournament armies.
The OP is providing those who play informally and who model a chance to have something that more approximates the GW version, or even adds variety to an existing collection.
Let all the "IP lawyers" in this thread take a running jump. I doubt any of you have actual legal experience and are simply parroting the naysayers that infest the net.
To the OP, you might also want to look at the scenery market such as wrecked vehicles, generators, large containers etc as well as turret type gun emplacements.

Thank you sir. The "IP lawyers" are making me out to be a bad guy. Im not in it just for profit, I like doing it, and i enjoy providing people with similar items to ones they cant afford. I truthfully see no problem in that. 99% of this site hate GWs pricing anyways, I imagined there would be more people on my side. And I wasnt looking for insults, constructive criticisim works fine. Many people here have little knowledge of IP laws. Ill be the first to say Im lacking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And what about Warlord titans? There is no model in the 28mm range, Is it CR infringment to create one?

"I enjoy providing people with similar items to ones they cant afford."

There is a difference between producing a competing product which looks similar at a cheaper price, and attempting to produce a copy of that product and sell it for cheaper. Yours definitely falls into the latter category. Compare it to making your own indie superhero flim, or sitting in the cinemas camcording the Avengers.

The test in US copyright law is 'substantial similarity' of the expression (once one discounts the non-protectable ideas), which your models would fail if brought under scrutiny. For example, there are multiple ways that you *could* have made the hatches for the tank if you were creating your own design, but you chose to make them the same shape and in the same positions as the GW one, etc etc.
In considering a copyright case, the companies involved must necessarily consider the harm to their business; even if you win get awarded damages AND court fees, it can still be an expensive experience. So for example DC don't stop people from making a Superman cape at home for their kids (because this is a positive thing for their business as long as everyone knows that you made it), but they might stop you from producing multiples of said capes and selling them at a local market (because people might not know they are home-made), and they definitely will stop you from mass-producing capes and selling to Walmart.

GW has a particular history with being crazy and sending Cease and Desist orders to GW fan-sites and competing companies which produce items that are *completely* different, so your Baneblades are sure to come under fire.

As someone said above, if you want to pursue this I urge you to read the Chapterhouse thread and the court documents linked there via Pacer. CHS created the company with an IP lawyer on retainer and thought they were untouchable but they have now been tied up in over two years of litigation without even going to trial yet.

And yes, the Warlord Titan would be infringement.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Thank you sir. The "IP lawyers" are making me out to be a bad guy. Im not in it just for profit, I like doing it, and i enjoy providing people with similar items to ones they cant afford. I truthfully see no problem in that. 99% of this site hate GWs pricing anyways, I imagined there would be more people on my side. And I wasnt looking for insults, constructive criticisim works fine. Many people here have little knowledge of IP laws. Ill be the first to say Im lacking.

Ah yes, the traditional "ignore everyone who gave the answer I didn't want and focus on the one person who agreed with me" approach. You have the right to do so, but don't complain when you get unwanted attention from GW's lawyers.

BTW, what did your lawyer say about your plan?

 Glorioski wrote:
Design your own tanks which fit the 40k aesthetic and you will do better.

This. Construct your own unique design that fits the scale and blends in with the look of 40k. Change the name make sure there are no use of trademarked names, insignias, etc. Create a mold and make resin copies. Create a kickstarter. No copyright problems, and you might actually make some money if the quality is good.