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.

I see a thread was rather arbitrarily closed because the mod thought that casting might get mentioned at some point. One of the stranger mod choices I've ever seen. So now we're not supposed to discuss casting and that extends to any customising topics where casting might be considered. That is casting of custom made pieces.

I believe it was referencing casting models GW licensed minis or buying recasts, which is obviously copyright infringement or piracy.

YARR!!

Casting of custom made pieces is fine. There are a number of p&m and plog threads where people cast their own stuff and discuss casting and mould making. There are even some tutorial threads in the tutorial forum.

Perhaps the moderator misread it. The original post didn't mention casting, I don't think (or at least not *re* casting). He was talking about making parts out of greenstuff -- which I would call "sculpting". The OP wasn't explicitly clear though, and I suppose it is conceivable that he meant, sculpting exact replicas of (ripping off) Mk2/Mk4 parts. Though, I can't imagine why anyone would want to go to a ton of effort to rebuild something that's readily available.

I mean, just buy the kit if you want the exact part

Also, sculpting something for your own personal use, and it being identical to a GW product isn't copyright infringement is it?

Solar Shock wrote:
Also, sculpting something for your own personal use, and it being identical to a GW product isn't copyright infringement is it?

Are you kidding?

Unfortunately, jokes sometimes slide by on the interwebs.

Yes, if you sculpted something and it was identical to a GW product, it would be copyright infringement. If you sculpted something that got inspiration from GW you would be treading on a fine line, but probably ok.

 ravenflight wrote:

Are you kidding?

Unfortunately, jokes sometimes slide by on the interwebs.

Yes, if you sculpted something and it was identical to a GW product, it would be copyright infringement. If you sculpted something that got inspiration from GW you would be treading on a fine line, but probably ok.

Thanks for clearing that up for me was unsure.
Although it sounds rather rediculous. I mean If I take some GS and sculpt it to look identical to say a shoulder pad, I don't see what I am infringing upon? You can't own shapes. You can own a product. Although I am sure the argument is that they can own shapes and that this shape is theirs I am using that shoulder pad which I scuplted for my own personal use. Seems so outrageous Plus everything is inspired from something else, just seems so silly, but hey thats the world.

Best be checking my mail for my court summons!

The real thing is, GW gets super upset about casting and stuff, and communities that support it get the shaft - far better to be on the safe side, as much as it is heavy handed and rather stifling, than having undue pressure on the admins

Solar Shock wrote:
Although it sounds rather rediculous. I mean If I take some GS and sculpt it to look identical to say a shoulder pad, I don't see what I am infringing upon? You can't own shapes.

At great expense, Games Workshop has established that (blank) shoulder pads in specific are too generic to be copyrighted. However, some of their logos and iconography most certainly can be and are protected, such as their stylized Aquila.

If you want to recast GWS parts in your house, there is no personal use exemption that makes this not a civil infraction, and there's also no chance you're going to get sued. If you want to recast parts and sell them, you might wind up in legal trouble. In neither case will Dakka keep a thread open that discusses how to do so for fear of GWS - a company with a lengthy history of filing legally dubious yet financially ruinous litigation - might decide to target them.

Is that messed up? Kind of, it's a heckler's veto in a way. Realistically, though, Yakface is more interested in running a wargaming forum than in spending years crusading for free speech rights in court, and that's a pretty reasonable stance.

it is what it is.

 Ouze wrote:
Yakface is more interested in running a wargaming forum than in spending years crusading for free speech rights in court, and that's a pretty reasonable stance.

This is pretty much the crux of the issue. It's not worth Yakface's time/money/effort trying to fight off/placate/ignore GW when they kick down the door, storm your house and wake you up in the middle of the night holding your (much loved I would assume) website ransom over a user asking how to recast GW/FW's bits.


It is an unfortunate fact that GW legal is so heavy handed in their approach to protecting their IP. But as Ouze said,

it is what it is.

I think the mods get lock happy sometimes. Locking a thread because someone is asking advice on how to sculpt something similar to gw because recasting might be mentioned is quite a stretch. That's like saying everyone who talks about being really hard on their luck financially & not knowing how to pay upcoming bills is probably going to turn to crime.

This state of fear everyone is in over gw is honestly ridiculous. There are people in the US selling recasts on eBay but dakka quivers in fear because someone MIGHT mention it.

Look, I wondered the same thing initially. I didn't interoperate that post as being about recasting. I took it as he wanted to sculpt his own (similar/identical) parts but wasn't sure how to go about it.

I pm'd the mod who locked it saying exactly that. And (without wanting to speak for the mod in question) he said he didn't have much time to look at it properly and thought it seemed kind of up in the air. He did change the lock message to read a bit more generically though.



Also, Dakkas mods are hardly "lock happy". They lock what needs to be locked. Sometimes they pre-emptively lock a thread before it gets out of control. Nothing wrong with that. In my time here i've never seen a locked thread that I thought "Wow. No way that should be locked".

Real trouble would be if you recast and then sold them on yourself. That's a breach most definitely a and worth following up by IP owner.

However if you did for own use, if people want the info they will find it elsewhere on the web, and kept yout mouth shut, no ones gonna know.

Dakka will look after its interests and that logical but other places will tell you, and that's no one but the casters problem. No one else need worry.

Computron wrote:
I see a thread was rather arbitrarily closed because the mod thought that casting might get mentioned at some point. One of the stranger mod choices I've ever seen. So now we're not supposed to discuss casting and that extends to any customising topics where casting might be considered. That is casting of custom made pieces.

Your original post had the title of "Re-Caster Wanted". DakkaDakka does not support that in any way. Hence why they closed the thread. Casting your own projects are fine. Copy anything is not. Simple.

While any particular instance could be debated, the moderation staff is not interested in finding the line and pushing it when it comes to IP piracy.

As mentioned above, threads about casting parts in which the caster owns the copyright are fine.

 Sammoth wrote:

Computron wrote:
I see a thread was rather arbitrarily closed because the mod thought that casting might get mentioned at some point. One of the stranger mod choices I've ever seen. So now we're not supposed to discuss casting and that extends to any customising topics where casting might be considered. That is casting of custom made pieces.

Your original post had the title of "Re-Caster Wanted". DakkaDakka does not support that in any way. Hence why they closed the thread. Casting your own projects are fine. Copy anything is not. Simple.

Not my post or thread, I was referencing a thread by a member who was wanting to know how to build mk2 and mk4 armour as they didn't want to go the FW route. I do vaguely recall a thread called Recasters Wanted but I think that was about heads. Other than the heads mk4 is quite simple to convert from regular marines, mk2 not so much which was the point of the original question. It's also why it'd be good if the rumour about an HH boxed set is true - plastic is easier to work with than resin.

Solar Shock wrote:
Although it sounds rather rediculous. I mean If I take some GS and sculpt it to look identical to say a shoulder pad, I don't see what I am infringing upon? You can't own shapes. You can own a product.

It's not an easy issue, and there would be a host of legal stuff going on here, which I am not qualified to answer, but I have an opinion which I'm willing to share.

Let's say you take a diamond shape. It probably can't be copyrighted. So, you can make as many diamond shapes as you like:

<>

There you go, you have a diamond shape.

<><>

There you go, you have two.

<><><>

There you go, you have three.

No breaches of copyright.

Now, if you assemble them like this, then you're breaching copyright.

So, yes, the curve and shape of a shoulder pad is probably not able to be copyrighted, but as soon as you put it on a miniature in a way where a reasonable person would think that you're trying to get something you should pay for without paying for it... then you'll be in breach.

Another example would be a circle. Can't copyright that. But put 5 circles in an arrangement like the olympic rings... well... you'll be sued.

Now, if you make a necklace that has 5 rings interlinked like the olympic rings then chances are nobody is going to do anything about it. Try selling it and it's another thing entirely.

To further explain my viewpoint... take the 'iron throne' as an example. It's just a bunch of swords. You can't copyrigth a sword shape. But I know people have been sued by the owners of Game of Thrones because they have tried to sell 'iron throne' replicas. Isn't that just a bunch of uncopyrightable swords thrown together?

I am slightly confused.

Is discussing the direct recasting of a GW product a person owns for their own use (not to sell) a no no?

Or is it only if one is talking about buying/selling recasted stuff?

Or is it just that the first topic is simply too close for comfort?

 Poop Deck wrote:
I am slightly confused.

Is discussing the direct recasting of a GW product a person owns for their own use (not to sell) a no no?

Or is it only if one is talking about buying/selling recasted stuff?

Or is it just that the first topic is simply too close for comfort?

It's breach of copyright. I guess, you can consider it a bit like smokong pot. If you're doing it for yourself you are breaking the law even if you'll probably get away with it. If you give/sell some of it to your friends you're still going to probably get away with it. If you go into major production you're heading for a world of hurt. Either which way, you're breaking the law.

Similarly, if you discuss your production of pot online, there are going to be some nervous people... so expect the thread to be locked.

 Poop Deck wrote:
I am slightly confused.

Is discussing the direct recasting of a GW product a person owns for their own use (not to sell) a no no?

Yes. This policy has never been unclear, in my opinion. See Manchu, above.

Any thread that discusses recasting an IP that is not owned or licensed by the recaster can expect to be shut down in short order.

 Ouze wrote:

 Poop Deck wrote:
I am slightly confused.

Is discussing the direct recasting of a GW product a person owns for their own use (not to sell) a no no?

Yes. This policy has never been unclear, in my opinion. See Manchu, above.

Any thread that discusses recasting an IP that is not owned or licensed by the recaster can expect to be shut down in short order.

Do you know if this policy written down somewhere? I was trying to find it, but I didn't see anything.

Mods are people too, something something dark side...

 Poop Deck wrote:
Do you know if this policy written down somewhere? I was trying to find it, but I didn't see anything.

Not in so many words. It's covered by the general 'Don't post infringing material' part of the legal terms linked at the very bottom of each page of the forum.

This is the thread in question:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/639534.page

Now can someone please point out where the ip infringement was taking place because I don't see it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Poop Deck wrote:
Do you know if this policy written down somewhere? I was trying to find it, but I didn't see anything.

Not in so many words. It's covered by the general 'Don't post infringing material' part of the legal terms linked at the very bottom of each page of the forum.

I genuinaly hope this isn't coming across as nitpicky, but I am not finding the link you are referring to. Is it it the really small "Legal Stuff" link at the bottom that you are referring to? Because there I find no trace of the word "...cast..." at all. I see "...infring..." Is that the entire thing? I am not trying to push people's patience. I am truly just trying to understand the rules of the forum.

 Poop Deck wrote:
I genuinaly hope this isn't coming across as nitpicky, but I am not finding the link you are referring to. Is it it the really small "Legal Stuff" link at the bottom that you are referring to? Because there I find no trace of the word "...cast..." at all. I see "...infring..."

Hence my 'not in so many words' comment...

There is nothing in the forum rules or terms that specifically says 'Don't talk about casting other peoples' stuff'. Just the general 'Don't post infringing material'. Which covers said casting discussion, unless it is restricted to things that you actually have legal authority to cast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Computron wrote:
Now can someone please point out where the ip infringement was taking place because I don't see it.

In this case, the discussion was on casting sculpts of space marine parts, which falls in to a bit of a legal grey area. The fact that they are sculpted by the poster makes them his own... but dependong on how closely they mimic GW's own product, can potentially still be an infringement.

When in doubt, Dakka will generally err on the side of caution. The legal bills are cheaper that way.

Gotcha. Thanks for the response, insaniak! I really appreciate it.

Insaniak I have a question, and as this thread seems quite active (and on my sub list) I hope it is ok to ask here.

So on the front page of dakka this morning was some sculpting work (space corsairs) which is fantastic, now he's sculpted some Inquisitor Icons and signs, my question being;

If I say buy a rhino and add some GW icons/icons of a similar look and style through greenstuff, then I attempt to sell that rhino (either here on dakka or elsewhere) have I infringed in anyway? - I haven't technically re-cast the icons but I have certainly made them to look like the GW product and I am then attempting to sell?

Or to ask in another format;
I am considering making some stuff that I would like to potentially cast or to make some conversions and to sell those, but I have no idea where the line would be? Is there any general guidelines or documentation? or should I have a wander around the internet for something about casting and IP infridgement? - I don't want to re-cast GW stuff, but I only play 40k, so anything I make in general is designed for use with my 40k stuff and therefore holds some resemblance.

Here's the thing about IP law: It's a big, confusing mess, full of grey areas and things that only IP lawyers really understand, simply because of the vast range of stuff it has to cover.

It's made even more messy by the fact that a lot of stuff only becomes clearly legal (or not) if it actually goes to court. Which means whether or not something is an infringement in many cases comes down largely to whether or not the IP owner chooses to try to go you for it.

And that's where GW step in. According to the legal FAQ they used to have on their website (no idea if it's on the 'new' site) GW consider all conversions to be technically an infringement on their intellectual property. (How, they don't say).

However, they go on to say that in the case of one-off conversions to make a model look spiffy, they don't mind. They just object to people mass-producing stuff.

So people sculpting details onto their models are in the clear, whether for their own use or to sell.

People sculpting stuff and casting it to sell are potentially not (see the Chapterhouse Studios lawsuit).

People sculpting stuff and casting it for their own use (ie: not to sell) are probably in the clear legally (due to the fact that trying to take them to court for something that doesn't make any money would be utterly pointless) but still potentially making themselves a target for GW's overzealous lawyers if they go talking about it on publicly viewable forums.

Whether or not any of what GW consider to be an infringement is actually an infringement is an altogether different story... but debating that with GW requires calling their bluff and being prepared to argue it in court, as Chapterhouse did. And that's a long, tedious, and messy road to travel.

Computron, regarding the thread you asked about. This popped up in "moderators" by the original poster for the linked thread. RITides (who locked it) said the following:

 RiTides wrote:
I also thought it might be worth posting a bit of an explanation on what you may be referring to clone, since I just checked the thread that I think you are (and it turns out that I was the one who locked it).

Several users had alerted that thread (which you can do by clicking on the yellow triangle in the corner of a post) as being about recasting. I also got several PMs from users after locking it that felt it was not about recasting at all. So, it was definitely borderline - you are more than welcome to discuss casting methods on Dakka, but if you start out referring to a specific mark of space marine armor, then it would be easy for another poster to interpret that as asking about recasting (and several did).

Just wanted to provide a bit of explanation as I think it was a borderline case, and perhaps not what you were intending at all, but since it could have been taken that way I decided it should be locked (and I clarified my lock message after a few PMs from users).

I hope that's clear and if not, please just PM me to discuss further!