Does GW morally have the right to say no to OOP recast?

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.

**Naaris**

I don't oppose recasting because I don't care for GW as a company. For me they are a big bad faceless corporation where the bottom line is all that matters and customer appreciation is not in their agenda. Their price gouging is criminal.

Also GW is not a person - so the way I see it recasting or buying from a recaster isn't screwing over a guy who worked hard and was creative.

Bill the creative guy that was an artist or went to school for design and then got a job a GW - probably gets paid an average wage - or conceivably a below average wage because it's a niche company - so he's doing it for the love of the job.
Bill probably doesn't have stock options and his career growth potential is probably limited.
Bill probably also works in a team and maybe a gem stone or sword arm idea of his gets added to a model.
Bill contributes what he can. The project manager / creative manager get the final say.
At the end of the day...Bill doesn't own what he creates. Sh*!tty GW does.

So morally...I'd feel bad if recasting meant I was stealing from Bill. But Recasting is stealing from GW. Who steal from everyone with their insane pricing.

It's Dutch door action.

**oldzoggy**

This doesn't have much to do with recasting. This is just a question about you being a latent anarchist or not ; )

Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is a social rule / law not to do it.
But you will have something to gain by ignoring the rule and no one will get seriously hurt when you ignore it. So what do you do ?

It is the same sort of question as would ignore the red light if the road is empty ?
Or is it ok to download music from dead artist ?

**chromedog**

What's morality got to do with it?

It's a legal issue, purely and simply - and a civil one at that, not a criminal one.

(copyright violation is a breach of civil law here, not criminal law).

**oldzoggy**

chromedog wrote:
What's morality got to do with it?

Everything

Ignoring laws. and claiming rights certainly are morality / cultural issues. It is an interesting topic, but it can't really be discussed to its full on this forum. Since only the law abiding arguments are allowed by the forum rules.

**Elbows**

I'm a little shocked at the complete lack of legal understanding several posters here are displaying. Copying a produced and copyrighted item is not legal, full-stop. It does not, in any way fall under "Fair Use" clauses.

The argument that something is out-of-print or too expensive is utterly worthless in a legal context. The argument that "oh, boo-hoo their toys are too expensive" is even worse. I say this as someone who's got very little love for Games Workshop. They're toy soldiers. You don't like the cost? Play something else.

It's one thing to say you disagree with the cost of models that they produce (I do, almost completely) but it's a whole other level to say "well they're too pricey...so I'll steal/break the law".

If you personally don't like GW's methods/costs/discontinuation policies...go third party or just go buy cheap eBay copies if you think that's legitimate. There are loads of 3rd parties with "notX" models.

**stroller**

It amused me that one example given was:

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

This week, you CAN buy new original kasrkin figures from GW. Why would GW NOT oppose recasting? And who, this week, can justifiably say "yeah, recasting kasrkin is morally fine"?

**jhe90**

stroller wrote:
It amused me that one example given was:

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

This week, you CAN buy new original kasrkin figures from GW. Why would GW NOT oppose recasting? And who, this week, can justifiably say "yeah, recasting kasrkin is morally fine"?

If it was unavailable for purchase... And not sold. For purely a personal one off run off a few models at the most.
In a very narrow circumstances. Legal still wrong. Morals. Id not be calling you a pirate...

I forgot about the new made to order system.

**joseph_curwen**

Fair use 100% does not cover recasting for 'personal reasons,' at all, and recasting is a violation of copyright and, often, trademark.
Morally... eh, there are far greater things for me to get upset about than someone recasting out of print models and I can't imagine the day that would come where I'd find myself morally outraged by it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I mean, there are tons of things that are 100% legal that are absolutely unethical and (as defined by the prevailing culture) immoral and tons of things that are illegal that 100% ethical and moral.

**Asterios**

Elbows wrote:
I'm a little shocked at the complete lack of legal understanding several posters here are displaying. Copying a produced and copyrighted item is not legal, full-stop. It does not, in any way fall under "Fair Use" clauses.

The argument that something is out-of-print or too expensive is utterly worthless in a legal context. The argument that "oh, boo-hoo their toys are too expensive" is even worse. I say this as someone who's got very little love for Games Workshop. They're toy soldiers. You don't like the cost? Play something else.

It's one thing to say you disagree with the cost of models that they produce (I do, almost completely) but it's a whole other level to say "well they're too pricey...so I'll steal/break the law".

If you personally don't like GW's methods/costs/discontinuation policies...go third party or just go buy cheap eBay copies if you think that's legitimate. There are loads of 3rd parties with "notX" models.

problem is if we are talking about a model that is over 14 years old, got news for you then it is no longer protected, my point is copyrights and patents and design are not the end all of what not, in fact if the patent is not renewed every 2 years or one year depending on type it is null and void, so I repeat i stand by my assumption. but then you get into the muddled world of what is considered art over design, while in the UK it is easier to copyright a 2D object then it is to copyright a 3D object, now while a work of literature, art and such copyrights like that can last 70-95 years or so depending on how they were created and such, but then we get into designs and using molds and mass producing then the copyright is not so strong or long lasting.

now as to GW designs i'm thinking more the latter then the former which is why they are trademarked and copyrighted every year it seems, which means GW has to pay a fee to renew the copyright, which I do not see GW doing with now defunct molds.

but if you have any questions instead of asking us the OP should have asked GW and maybe, just maybe GW would give an honest answer to the question too.

**Peregrine**

Naaris wrote:
Their price gouging is criminal.

No it is not. In fact it isn't even price gouging at all. This is nothing more than entitled justification for why you don't want to pay for something the honest way.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
problem is if we are talking about a model that is over 14 years old, got news for you then it is no longer protected

Absolutely wrong. Please at least read the wikipedia article on copyright law before trying to discuss it.

**JohnHwangDD**

Asterios wrote:
problem is if we are talking about a model that is over 14 years old, got news for you then it is no longer protected,

Where are you getting that 14 year thing? Can you source that?

From what I see, GW's "sculptural works" would have a 70 / 95-year protection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Duration_of_copyright

**Asterios**

Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
problem is if we are talking about a model that is over 14 years old, got news for you then it is no longer protected

Absolutely wrong. Please at least read the wikipedia article on copyright law before trying to discuss it.

actually I go by the intellectual property rights relevant for the toy industry instead.

a brief blurb from a stormtrooper case:

Importantly, in applying these factors, Mann J. addressed whether toys of Stormtroopers were sculptures. The matter was important because Lucasfilrn had authorised the making and sale of such toys. Consequently, the duration of its copyright in the designs on which the toys were based was effectively limited under section 52 of the C.D.P.A. to 15 years unless the toys were regarded themselves as "sculptures": C.D.P.A., Sched 1, para. 20; section 10 Copyright Act 1956. The judge concluded that they were not. He stated, [2009] FSR (2), 154-155, [123]: "Next, it is necessary to consider the toy Stormtroopers, and other characters, which are taken as being reproductions of the armour and helmets for the purposes of section 52. These are, as already described, articulated models which are sold as toys and which are intended for the purposes of play. Play is their primary, if not sale, purpose. While their appearance is obviously highly important (if they did not look like the original, the child would not be so interested) they are not made for the purposes of their visual appearance as such. While there is no accounting for taste, it is highly unlikely that they would be placed on display and periodically admired as such. The child is intended to use them in a (literally) hands-on way, in a form of delegated role play, and that is doubtless how they are actually used. That means, in my view, they are not sculptures. They can be distinguished from the model in Britain which apparently had a significant element of being admirable for its own visual salce. That does not apply to the Stormtrooper, whose only IS Case: 1:10-cv-08103 Document #: 208-19 Filed: 08/14/12 Page 64 of 134 PageID #:3988real purpose is play. In reaching this conclusion I am not saying that the Britain model is better at what it portrays than the Stormtrooper model. That would be to make judgments about artistic quality, which the statute understandably forbids. It is making a judgment about whether there is anything in the model which has an artistic essence, in the sense identified above. I conclude that there is not."

**Peregrine**

Asterios wrote:
actually I go by the intellectual property rights relevant for the toy industry instead.

GW's model designs are protected by copyright. There is no special "toy industry copyright" that has different terms.

**joseph_curwen**

Asterios wrote:
Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
problem is if we are talking about a model that is over 14 years old, got news for you then it is no longer protected

Absolutely wrong. Please at least read the wikipedia article on copyright law before trying to discuss it.

actually I go by the intellectual property rights relevant for the toy industry instead.

And you're still entirely wrong about it.

**Azreal13**

I refer you to the famous Stormtrooper case..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12910683

Specifically..

If Lucasfilm could convince the courts the 3D works were sculptures, they would be protected by copyright for the life of the author plus 70 years.
If not, the copyright protection would be reduced to 15 years from the date they were marketed, meaning it would have expired and Mr Ainsworth would be free to sell them.

**JohnHwangDD**

Asterios wrote:
Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
problem is if we are talking about a model that is over 14 years old, got news for you then it is no longer protected

Absolutely wrong. Please at least read the wikipedia article on copyright law before trying to discuss it.

actually I go by the intellectual property rights relevant for the toy industry instead.

a brief blurb from a stormtrooper case:

Importantly, in applying these factors, Mann J. addressed whether toys of Stormtroopers were sculptures. The matter was important because Lucasfilrn had authorised the making and sale of such toys. Consequently, the duration of its copyright in the designs on which the toys were based was effectively limited under section 52 of the C.D.P.A.

That case is irrelevant, as CDPA section 52 was repealed on 28 July, 2016. This harmonized copyright for toys with other sculptures.

Section 52 of the CDPA currently contains an exception which limits copyright protection for certain artistic works when they have been industrially manufactured. This means that when more than 50 copies of these artistic works are made, then the current period of protection is limited to 25 years, compared to other artistic works which are protected by copyright for the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years. The Government has decided to bring industrially manufactured items into line with other artistic works so that all types of artistic works will have copyright protection for the life of the creator plus 70 years, rather than the 25 years it would have had under section 52 CDPA.

http://www.hgf.com/updates/news/2016/05/repeal-of-section-52-of-the-copyright-designs-and-patents-act-1988/

Don't reference obsolete law.

**Azreal13**

~~Not obsolete in the U.K.~~

Scratch that, but then it was very recent.

**Asterios**

Peregrine wrote:
Asterios wrote:
actually I go by the intellectual property rights relevant for the toy industry instead.

GW's model designs are protected by copyright. There is no special "toy industry copyright" that has different terms.

guess again, here is a nice little article dealing with GW and its items:

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

**joseph_curwen**

A patent is entirely different from both a copyright and a trademark and you're still just showing that you DEEPLY don't understand the first thing about IP law.

**JohnHwangDD**

Azreal13 wrote:
Not obsolete in the U.K.

Dude, I just gave a link showing that it was obsolete.

From 29 July 2016, no new copies of affected artistic works may be made or imported unless:
* The works were contracted before the publication of the consultation document at 16.30 on 28 October 2015
* The rights holder has granted permission
* An exception to copyright applies under the CDPA 1988

From 28 January 2017, no works created in reliance on s.52 should be dealt with. By this date, unless the work falls within an exception to copyright under the CDPA 1988, the works must be:
* Sold or destroyed
* Authorised by the rights holder

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2016/04/s52-repeal-comes-into-force-july-28-2016.html

**Slaanesh-Devotee**

Lord of Deeds wrote:

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.

You're right, we should always assume legal is the same as moral. Otherwise we might have to free those slaves or allow those loving men to marry each other, and where would we be if that happened!!

**Peregrine**

Asterios wrote:
guess again, here is a nice little article dealing with GW and its items:

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

Please read your own article.

What 3-D printing hobbyists mostly have to watch out for, Weinberg argues, is copying artistic patterns or designs on an object. That violates copyright.

The argument with 3d printing is not that you can create an exact duplicate of a GW model, it's that you can create your own model with a similar style. In fact, 3d printing is completely irrelevant here, as the same law applies to sculpting and selling models through traditional casting methods. The only reason anyone is talking about it in the context of 3d printing is that 3d printing makes it a lot easier to make copies if you aren't one of the few people who already has a lot of experience with casting.

**JohnHwangDD**

Asterios wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
GW's model designs are protected by copyright. There is no special "toy industry copyright" that has different terms.

guess again, here is a nice little article dealing with GW and its items:

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

Nope. Check the actual law that is in effect.

**Asterios**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Asterios wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
GW's model designs are protected by copyright. There is no special "toy industry copyright" that has different terms.

guess again, here is a nice little article dealing with GW and its items:

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

Nope. Check the actual law that is in effect.

well that was the law 3 years ago and have yet to hear a change to that law here in the US, have you? and where?

@Peregrine yes you are right about the art part but that can be fixed with a little putty and art part removed.

**buddha**

Just to stop the psuedo-lawyering on here, IP law is a civil matter so nothing regarding it is "illegal" and short of running a recast factory a laughably small possible legal issue.

If you want to recast some OOP model for your personal use go for it.

**Peregrine**

Asterios wrote:
well that was the law 3 years ago and have yet to hear a change to that law here in the US, have you? and where?

You haven't heard a change to the law in the US because this was a UK law, US copyright law never had the shorter length for "toys". The article on the stormtrooper case explains this, including the fact that the guy lost in US court.

@Peregrine yes you are right about the art part but that can be fixed with a little putty and art part removed.

Uh, what?

**JohnHwangDD**

Asterios wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Asterios wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
GW's model designs are protected by copyright. There is no special "toy industry copyright" that has different terms.

guess again, here is a nice little article dealing with GW and its items:

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

Nope. Check the actual law that is in effect.

well that was the law 3 years ago and have yet to hear a change to that law here in the US, have you? and where?

Let's be very clear that the obsolete law that you cited only applies to the UK, not the US. UK law is no harmonized with US law.

In the US, there was no reduction in the first place (because that would have cut into Mickey Mouse toy sales), and so it's always been minimum 25 years, now 70+ years.

As for the advice to copy to your hearts content?

The legal penalties for copyright infringement are: Infringer pays the actual dollar amount of damages and profits. The law provides a range from $200 to $150,000 for each work infringed. Infringer pays for all attorneys fees and court costs.

https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/penalties.html

$150k + GW Legal fees buys a fethton of OOP stuff on eBay. And don't think GW wouldn't take pleasure in destroying you in court. They're still smarting over the Chapterhouse fiasco. Recasting is a cut-and-dry win for them.

**Asterios**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Asterios wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Asterios wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
GW's model designs are protected by copyright. There is no special "toy industry copyright" that has different terms.

guess again, here is a nice little article dealing with GW and its items:

https://www.wired.com/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

Nope. Check the actual law that is in effect.

well that was the law 3 years ago and have yet to hear a change to that law here in the US, have you? and where?

Let's be very clear that the obsolete law that you cited only applies to the UK, not the US. UK law is no harmonized with US law.

In the US, there was no reduction in the first place (because that would have cut into Mickey Mouse toy sales), and so it's always been minimum 25 years, now 70+ years.

As for the advice to copy to your hearts content?

The legal penalties for copyright infringement are: Infringer pays the actual dollar amount of damages and profits. The law provides a range from $200 to $150,000 for each work infringed. Infringer pays for all attorneys fees and court costs.

https://www.lib.purdue.edu/uco/CopyrightBasics/penalties.html

$150k + GW Legal fees buys a fethton of OOP stuff on eBay. And don't think GW wouldn't take pleasure in destroying you in court. They're still smarting over the Chapterhouse fiasco. Recasting is a cut-and-dry win for them.

actually the link I posted that you quoted me from is from an article where a US lawyer on such things spoke about it. also how does one pay damages on product no longer released or produced? provided it is a copyright and not a patent?

**JohnHwangDD**

I don't care where you posted it from.

As for damages, ask the RIAA - statutory damages are a thing, separate from actual damages.

And it is definitely copyright of an artwork, not a patent of an invention.

Really, your posts here display gross ignorance of IP law. You should stop. Or, if you're so sure, then you should do it, post proof, and see what GW does about it.

**Asterios**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't care where you posted it from.

As for damages, ask the RIAA - statutory damages are a thing, separate from actual damages.

And it is definitely copyright of an artwork, not a patent of an invention.

Really, your posts here display gross ignorance of IP law. You should stop. Or, if you're so sure, then you should do it, post proof, and see what GW does about it.

and until you come up with a new law passed in the US in the past 3 years i will go by what the lawyer says, do you have a law degree in such IP infringement?