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.

So question of morality, not legality.

In your own opinion, so I think it is more for GW to be against recasting models that are so far OOP they will never be made again even if they are for games that are no longer supported.

This is mainly with games such as epic and BFG.

These items are long oop and range any where from 40 to 100 bucks for a single ship on eBay. Is it morally wrong for GW to say you can't recast those even though they no longer produce them?

Again this is not about the legality of it, this is arguing the morality of saying you can get models we don't make any more.

To make it clear as it seems to be mistaken this is NOT about th legal implication, this is about weather an individual is right or wrong for wanting to buy OOP recasts

ADDITONNALLY, keep in mind this is in regards mainly to BFG, and Epic, games GW abandon years ago with no support at all.

If your have a point regarding legality tied to morality that is fine, but I would rather see that opinion rather then "it's illigal."

Like any question of morality, that is completely determined by you, and nobody else. It is impossible to judge morality for a population, we have laws in place but those dictate the necessities for human beings to get along, not how every human being thinks and feelings.

However, I think it is perfectly okay. GW created it, it is their baby, they put the sweat and tears into the designs (figuratively, it cant be THAT hard) so obviously it stands to reason that they should have full control of what is done with said baby.

Just my $0.02, feel free to disagree!
~Mikey

you can recast it all you want for your own use, you just can't sell it.

As above, if you can't get one by any other means and you don't plan on reselling, go for it.

I don't believe the OP makes sense. Morality is not the issue, legality is. Whether or not you partake in recasting shenanigans or not is up to you. GW has every legal right to defend their property - morality doesn't factor into the equation.

It's a bit like telling a police officer who pulled you over for speeding that you don't believe speeding to be "morally" bad, etc. It's irrelevant.

GW has to oppose recasts. Even if they are OOP and never to be made again by GW. They would eventually lose their rights to this miniature if they don't fight it, and as a company, they have to act legally correct.

That said, I buy OOP recast models without any guilt and don't think it's morally wrong. No one but the second hand market is making money with these OOP models, no designer, sculptor or someone else who created this miniature is taking cuts from second hand market sells. So I just as well might buy a recast.

 Elbows wrote:
I don't believe the OP makes sense. Morality is not the issue, legality is. Whether or not you partake in recasting shenanigans or not is up to you. GW has every legal right to defend their property - morality doesn't factor into the equation.

It's a bit like telling a police officer who pulled you over for speeding that you don't believe speeding to be "morally" bad, etc. It's irrelevant.

Perhaps I should more clearly put it out there.

This is not about legality, no one is questioning the legal implication of it.

This is more directed at discontinued games IE BFG, and epic.

Currently there is no way to official obtain these models with out getting gouged by eBay resellers, which in all likely hood are recast any way.

Is it morally wrong?

GW no longer makes it, no longer support it, and does not give any way to obtain it. Does that mean if the creator of a product decides the no longer want to make or carry a product, or even support it, that it's immoral of fans of the product to want to continue to obtain and use the product? Even if that product is not from the official creator?

To give the legal opinion.

Yes.
They still own the design even if not made and reserve the right to remake said design, modify or rerelease it.

Say cadian karskin.
They might make new models remaster the old model.
They still own it.

Moraly.
Long as your not selling them..

 jhe90 wrote:
To give the legal opinion.

Yes.
They still own the design even if not made and reserve the right to remake said design, modify or rerelease it.

Say cadian karskin.
They might make new models remaster the old model.
They still own it.

I agree form a legal stand point yes, I'll modify the OP as this is geared toward OOP games like epic and BFG

Again not about legality, but morality.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
So question of morality, not legality.

In your own opinion, so I think it is more for GW to be against recasting models that are so far OOP they will never be made again even if they are for games that are no longer supported.

This is mainly with games such as epic and BFG.

These items are long oop and range any where from 40 to 100 bucks for a single ship on eBay. Is it morally wrong for GW to say you can't recast those even though they no longer produce them?

Again this is not about the legality of it, this is arguing the morality of saying you can get models we don't make any more.

First I think its faulty to try and distinguish between morality and legality. Morality is defined as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior which has lead to the various laws which are an attempt to codify the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
I know it maybe frustrating to not have ready access to a OOP mini and the temptation to trying any rationalize what is unequivocally considered illegal.

GW owns the design until its copyright expires or they stop defending it. They are morally entitled to compensation for it regardless of its current production status or intent to produce more.

Bottom line is someone is profiting (be it cash or other perceived benefit) from someone else's work with no compensation given to the owner.

Also GW is entitled to determine who and who cannot reproduce their work regardless of intent. So IMHO even if re-casting for yourself, it is still immoral as it is up to GW to determine if you can re-cast their design or not.

To look at it another way, isn't immoral to deny or limit someone else's right?

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

Also GW is entitled to determine who and who cannot reproduce their work regardless of intent. So IMHO even if re-casting for yourself, it is still immoral as it is up to GW to determine if you can re-cast their design or not.

To look at it another way, isn't immoral to deny or limit someone else's right?

actually there are laws allow recasting for yourself and is a very well protected law at that, so if recasting for yourself then no its neither illegal nor immoral.

Asterios wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

Also GW is entitled to determine who and who cannot reproduce their work regardless of intent. So IMHO even if re-casting for yourself, it is still immoral as it is up to GW to determine if you can re-cast their design or not.

To look at it another way, isn't immoral to deny or limit someone else's right?

actually there are laws allow recasting for yourself and is a very well protected law at that, so if recasting for yourself then no its neither illegal nor immoral.

I actually never knew about that, where is that law at?

 Backspacehacker wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

Also GW is entitled to determine who and who cannot reproduce their work regardless of intent. So IMHO even if re-casting for yourself, it is still immoral as it is up to GW to determine if you can re-cast their design or not.

To look at it another way, isn't immoral to deny or limit someone else's right?

actually there are laws allow recasting for yourself and is a very well protected law at that, so if recasting for yourself then no its neither illegal nor immoral.

I actually never knew about that, where is that law at?

its called fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

it would be under non-commercial use.

But does that apply to products based outside of the US

Morality aside, it's the definition of unethical. It's taking an artist's work without compensating them.

Asterios wrote:
its called fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

it would be under non-commercial use.

No it is not. Fair use does NOT apply here, please stop repeating this myth. "Fair use" grants the ability to do specific things with copyrighted material: news reporting, quotes in academic papers, etc. It does not in any way grant the use to copy something because you don't want to buy it legally.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
But does that apply to products based outside of the US

pretty much any copyrighted material anywhere, as it goes if you are doing it for yourself in a non-commercial situation you are legally right, but now say you do some artwork that is copyrighted and put it in a business per se, then it gets sketchy like the preschools in Florida which had painted large Disney characters on their wall was threatened by Disney the case never went to court, but it would have brought to light what is considered fair use or not, it is a very fine line and if it could be proved you are making any form of profit or such from the work then it is illegal.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Morality aside, it's the definition of unethical. It's taking an artist's work without compensating them.

In this context, ie specifically with GW, their artists are salaried, so they get paid whatever.

Asterios wrote:
as it goes if you are doing it for yourself in a non-commercial situation you are legally right

NO. This is not true, at all.

and if it could be proved you are making any form of profit or such from the work then it is illegal.

This is also not true at all.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
GW has to oppose recasts. Even if they are OOP and never to be made again by GW. They would eventually lose their rights to this miniature if they don't fight it, and as a company, they have to act legally correct.

That said, I buy OOP recast models without any guilt and don't think it's morally wrong. No one but the second hand market is making money with these OOP models, no designer, sculptor or someone else who created this miniature is taking cuts from second hand market sells. So I just as well might buy a recast.

As much as I hate the fact that recasting OOP stuff for personal use is still illegal, this guy brings up the main point of the matter. Due to the way copyright law works, GW has to fight EVERYTHING, even if they don't really want to, or else they could lose licensing. So while yes, there may be no issue whatsoever with a player remaking old sculpts for his own use, technically it has to be fought.


I would like to note that GW is doing the best thing possible that is realistic in this case, with the made to order thing they're trying out. They sold out of EVERYTHING they offered on it for the first run, and offered all of it lower than the ebay scalpers did (and more importantly, they released them in metal, not finecast). I think GW found the perfect method to keep people happy with it for the short term. At the very least, even if you miss the window that they make the initial run, adding more stock back into the market will lower prices for the ebay stuff, meaning that models will stay a more reasonable price and you'll stop seeing people charge absolutely stupid amounts for old sculpts.

By doing this, it's about as win/win as you can get, provided the models you wanted are remade and didn't sell out in the preorder I have a feeling though that after GW saw how popular the first made to order run was they'll be better prepared for the next though. It'd be stupid to turn down people who actively want to spend money on your product.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
its called fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

it would be under non-commercial use.

No it is not. Fair use does NOT apply here, please stop repeating this myth. "Fair use" grants the ability to do specific things with copyrighted material: news reporting, quotes in academic papers, etc. It does not in any way grant the use to copy something because you don't want to buy it legally.

Unless the company expressly forbids personal use copies and/or actually if the copyrighted material being copied is being used with the intention of the original it would be allowed, but this is going by copyrighted material if you go into trademarked material then its a whole new set of laws and rights.

but to prove copyright infringement several factors are taken into effect The factors considered when applying the doctrine of fair use include: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the work used, and the effect the use has upon the market for the copyrighted work.

now if we go with an item that has not been done by GW in a long time, making personal copies does not effect GW's market on the items, but like I said it is a very fine line and should not be carte blanche to create whole sprues of current GW product. but if its for old product GW no longer makes and you are not selling it, I really don't think they give a feth about it, hell GW even gives permission to make copies of some of their written material for personal use and such.

Asterios wrote:
Unless the company expressly forbids personal use copies and/or actually if the copyrighted material being copied is being used with the intention of the original it would be allowed

No.

now if we go with an item that has not been done by GW in a long time, making personal copies does not effect GW's market on the items, but like I said it is a very fine line and should not be carte blanche to create whole sprues of current GW product. but if its for old product GW no longer makes and you are not selling it, I really don't think they give a feth about it, hell GW even gives permission to make copies of some of their written material for personal use and such.

And now you're confusing "I think doing this is fair and reasonable" with what "fair use" actually means. The "non-commercial" part is not blanket approval of any non-commercial uses, it's just one factor in determining if something is "fair use". Not all non-commercial uses are ok, and not all commercial uses are prohibited. The fact that copying models so you don't have to buy them is non-commercial* does not change the fact that "I don't want to buy legal copies" pretty blatantly fails the other tests. "Fair use" is intended to allow you to do things like writing an article on OOP GW models and using GW's catalog pictures as examples of what they looked like, even if you make money from writing that article. It is not permission to do anything you want as long as you aren't making money.

*At least in the sense that GW isn't selling the models directly anymore, it still has an impact on the third-party market and sellers of legitimate models.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
Unless the company expressly forbids personal use copies and/or actually if the copyrighted material being copied is being used with the intention of the original it would be allowed

No.

now if we go with an item that has not been done by GW in a long time, making personal copies does not effect GW's market on the items, but like I said it is a very fine line and should not be carte blanche to create whole sprues of current GW product. but if its for old product GW no longer makes and you are not selling it, I really don't think they give a feth about it, hell GW even gives permission to make copies of some of their written material for personal use and such.

And now you're confusing "I think doing this is fair and reasonable" with what "fair use" actually means. The "non-commercial" part is not blanket approval of any non-commercial uses, it's just one factor in determining if something is "fair use". Not all non-commercial uses are ok, and not all commercial uses are prohibited. The fact that copying models so you don't have to buy them is non-commercial* does not change the fact that "I don't want to buy legal copies" pretty blatantly fails the other tests. "Fair use" is intended to allow you to do things like writing an article on OOP GW models and using GW's catalog pictures as examples of what they looked like, even if you make money from writing that article. It is not permission to do anything you want as long as you aren't making money.

*At least in the sense that GW isn't selling the models directly anymore, it still has an impact on the third-party market and sellers of legitimate models.

But does GW, the license holder still make said models? is the recaster selling said recasts whether for profit or not? or even giving them away? say if you need a widget an easy to make widget or say a car part, but the only ones for sale are very pricey but you need the part for your car and can't afford the very high priced part sold thru a secondary seller since the original is long out of production can't you make your own? read carefully cause its a slippery slope you are on now.

Asterios wrote:
But does GW, the license holder still make said models?

That does not matter. Copying copyrighted material because you don't want to pay for a legal copy is not covered by fair use, regardless of whether money is changing hands for the copies.

say if you need a widget an easy to make widget or say a car part, but the only ones for sale are very pricey but you need the part for your car and can't afford the very high priced part sold thru a secondary seller since the original is long out of production can't you make your own?

You could make your own because functional objects with no creative/artistic content are not protected by copyright. However, if you were talking about something that is protected by copyright, "I really want this but I don't want to pay that much for it" is not justification for copyright infringement.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
But does GW, the license holder still make said models?

That does not matter. Copying copyrighted material because you don't want to pay for a legal copy is not covered by fair use, regardless of whether money is changing hands for the copies.

say if you need a widget an easy to make widget or say a car part, but the only ones for sale are very pricey but you need the part for your car and can't afford the very high priced part sold thru a secondary seller since the original is long out of production can't you make your own?

You could make your own because functional objects with no creative/artistic content are not protected by copyright. However, if you were talking about something that is protected by copyright, "I really want this but I don't want to pay that much for it" is not justification for copyright infringement.

More or less this is not an argument of, I don't wanna pay GW prices so I'll go to a recasters, it's a I want a GW product that GW abandon and the only sources of it would be recast or 2nd hand eBay at massive prices. At that point it's a matter of who's getting the money, it's no to int to be GW

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
But does GW, the license holder still make said models?

That does not matter. Copying copyrighted material because you don't want to pay for a legal copy is not covered by fair use, regardless of whether money is changing hands for the copies.

say if you need a widget an easy to make widget or say a car part, but the only ones for sale are very pricey but you need the part for your car and can't afford the very high priced part sold thru a secondary seller since the original is long out of production can't you make your own?

You could make your own because functional objects with no creative/artistic content are not protected by copyright. However, if you were talking about something that is protected by copyright, "I really want this but I don't want to pay that much for it" is not justification for copyright infringement.

so does GW have said item for sale? what if you needed a fender for say a '57 Chevy? or a grill for a '57 Chevy?

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
its called fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

it would be under non-commercial use.

No it is not. Fair use does NOT apply here, please stop repeating this myth. "Fair use" grants the ability to do specific things with copyrighted material: news reporting, quotes in academic papers, etc. It does not in any way grant the use to copy something because you don't want to buy it legally.

QFT. Re-casting a miniature is not fair use as defined under US copyright law regardless of quantity. If nothing else it fails fair use based on the fact that you are copying the entire work.

Asterios wrote:
Unless the company expressly forbids personal use copies……

This is backwards. An individual or company does not have to expressly forbid personal use copies. In fact, they have to expressly permit copies for personal use for you to legally copy which is why….

Asterios wrote:
…..GW even gives permission to make copies of some of their written material for personal use and such.

So GW has to explicitly post or print somewhere that you have permission to copy or recast, not the other way around. Thats part of the reason for putting marks on things, and no you can't argue that if you don't see a copyright mark, it must mean it's not copyrighted.

Asterios wrote:
but to prove copyright infringement several factors are taken into effect The factors considered when applying the doctrine of fair use include: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the work used, and the effect the use has upon the market for the copyrighted work.

If your basis for doing something is on the probability of how likely you are to be caught, sued, or prosecuted or how much you think it does or does not cost an individual or company, i.e. how bad is it on some personal sliding scale of right or wrong, than whether something is immoral is already irrelevant to you.

There is a reason there is a legitimate second hand market for these things (as well as other goods no longer in production, e.g. classic cars, MTG cards, various other mass produced items no longer in production).

Again, I get that its frustrating that a miniature you want is no longer widely available or costs more than you are willing or able to pay. Regardless it does not give someone the moral right to copy that work without permission or compensation to the owner.

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
But does GW, the license holder still make said models?

That does not matter. Copying copyrighted material because you don't want to pay for a legal copy is not covered by fair use, regardless of whether money is changing hands for the copies.

say if you need a widget an easy to make widget or say a car part, but the only ones for sale are very pricey but you need the part for your car and can't afford the very high priced part sold thru a secondary seller since the original is long out of production can't you make your own?

You could make your own because functional objects with no creative/artistic content are not protected by copyright. However, if you were talking about something that is protected by copyright, "I really want this but I don't want to pay that much for it" is not justification for copyright infringement.

so does GW have said item for sale? what if you needed a fender for say a '57 Chevy? or a grill for a '57 Chevy?

Before you can make that argument, it may be a case of Chevy allowed it to be created freely or it reached a point of open domain.

This is a case of, let's say you need the hood to a '57 Chevy, but Chevy refuses to make the hood or let anyone else make a Design that fits it

Asterios wrote:
but to prove copyright infringement several factors are taken into effect The factors considered when applying the doctrine of fair use include: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the work used, and the effect the use has upon the market for the copyrighted work.

When the purpose is merely to save money, because "buying genuine items is too expensive", most courts will take a dim view of that.

 Lord of Deeds wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
its called fair use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html

it would be under non-commercial use.

No it is not. Fair use does NOT apply here, please stop repeating this myth. "Fair use" grants the ability to do specific things with copyrighted material: news reporting, quotes in academic papers, etc. It does not in any way grant the use to copy something because you don't want to buy it legally.

QFT. Re-casting a miniature is not fair use as defined under US copyright law regardless of quantity. If nothing else it fails fair use based on the fact that you are copying the entire work.

Asterios wrote:
Unless the company expressly forbids personal use copies……

This is backwards. An individual or company does not have to expressly forbid personal use copies. In fact, they have to expressly permit copies for personal use for you to legally copy which is why….

Asterios wrote:
…..GW even gives permission to make copies of some of their written material for personal use and such.

So GW has to explicitly post or print somewhere that you have permission to copy or recast, not the other way around. Thats part of the reason for putting marks on things, and no you can't argue that if you don't see a copyright mark, it must mean it's not copyrighted.

Asterios wrote:
but to prove copyright infringement several factors are taken into effect The factors considered when applying the doctrine of fair use include: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the work used, and the effect the use has upon the market for the copyrighted work.

If your basis for doing something is on the probability of how likely you are to be caught, sued, or prosecuted or how much you think it does or does not cost an individual or company, i.e. how bad is it on some personal sliding scale of right or wrong, than whether something is immoral is already irrelevant to you.

There is a reason there is a legitimate second hand market for these things (as well as other goods no longer in production, e.g. classic cars, MTG cards, various other mass produced items no longer in production).

Again, I get that its frustrating that a miniature you want is no longer widely available or costs more than you are willing or able to pay. Regardless it does not give someone the moral right to copy that work without permission or compensation to the owner.

problem is there are secondary recasted parts for cars for sale, so that point is moot, as to me I don't recast if I feel the need for something that is not available on the open market i make my own copy, since recasts make for poor castings when its comes to old GW stuff. but if you look at things like CD's and DVD's you can make your own personal copies, you cannot distribute them, nor sell them or anything but if you have the original you can make a copy for yourself.

what it comes down to is this though, does GW still make the item? if no it will not take money away from them, will you be making money from said item? if no then not a problem, now exact recasting would be an issue, but it would not be solely judged on that, what it comes down to is, will GW get in a twist over it, if you make copies for yourself and don't go blabbing about it, doubt GW will find out or be concerned, but if you go making recasts then showing them off and blabbing how you recasted said items then yeah GW might take notice.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Asterios wrote:
but to prove copyright infringement several factors are taken into effect The factors considered when applying the doctrine of fair use include: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the work used, and the effect the use has upon the market for the copyrighted work.

When the purpose is merely to save money, because "buying genuine items is too expensive", most courts will take a dim view of that.

if the company still sells the product which is why I do not advocate the recasting or anything of current product.