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.

**JohnHwangDD**

Wow, I did not expect you to double down on the stupidity of going with obsolete law from a lawyer who's talking outside his jurisdiction.

As for whether I have a law degree, the mistakes you are making are so obvious and egregious, I don't need one to know that you're wrong.

Anyhow, I'm done with you and your trolling.

**Peregrine**

Asterios wrote:
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?

...

You do understand that there would be no reason for a new law in the US, right? The shorter copyright duration for certain things was a UK law, no such difference in duration existed in US law. Arguing "the UK made a new law, so show me the new US law" is just nonsense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as I already pointed out, even your own article on 3d printing has an IP lawyer saying "making exact copies would violate copyright" and only defending making new models in the same style as GW's designs.

**Psienesis**

Asterios wrote:
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.

In legal terms, no, you cannot make your own copy of that part. Its design and implementation are the legal intellectual property of a third party. Of course, no one is going to know if you went ahead and created this part for your own use, but that is a totally separate thing from the legality of the action.

That said, the specifics of the laws pertaining to this are going to vary by country. The morality of the action is going to vary by individuals.

**Asterios**

Peregrine wrote:
Asterios wrote:
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?

...

You do understand that there would be no reason for a new law in the US, right? The shorter copyright duration for certain things was a UK law, no such difference in duration existed in US law. Arguing "the UK made a new law, so show me the new US law" is just nonsense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, as I already pointed out, even your own article on 3d printing has an IP lawyer saying "making exact copies would violate copyright" and only defending making new models in the same style as GW's designs.

no the article said using exact artwork would violate the IP could still make a space marine, but without the icons, but then that brings up another question what about people who draw the icons on their pieces? is that a violation of IP?

Psienesis wrote:
Asterios wrote:
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.

In legal terms, no, you cannot make your own copy of that part. Its design and implementation are the legal intellectual property of a third party. Of course, no one is going to know if you went ahead and created this part for your own use, but that is a totally separate thing from the legality of the action.

That said, the specifics of the laws pertaining to this are going to vary by country. The morality of the action is going to vary by individuals.

actually you can make that part patent laws are very limited and much shorter in term then Copyrights and such, it is why I can make my old '80's G.I.Joe stuff with relative ease and not break the law, their patents are expired, now I can't use any of their logos or maybe even names but the vehicle designs I can.

**joseph_curwen**

never mind, it's not even worth it.

**Peregrine**

Asterios wrote:
no the article said using exact artwork would violate the IP could still make a space marine, but without the icons, but then that brings up another question what about people who draw the icons on their pieces? is that a violation of IP?

These questions are why "IP lawyer" is a profession. There is a gray area where a new design is not an exact copy/paste of an existing thing but clearly uses very similar design elements and is intended to be a copy, and the only way to find out for sure is to get the lawyers involved. Alternatively you can just avoid trying to make the closest possible copy of someone else's IP and do your own thing.

actually you can make that part patent laws are very limited and much shorter in term then Copyrights and such, it is why I can make my old '80's G.I.Joe stuff with relative ease and not break the law, their patents are expired, now I can't use any of their logos or maybe even names but the vehicle designs I can.

...

No. Seriously, you need to do some basic research on how IP law works. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are all very different things. Those old toy designs would be protected by copyright, and their names/logos/etc would be protected by trademarks. Patents do not apply because they protect functional devices, not artistic elements like the design of a toy. And the hypothetical car part is likely protected by none of the above, because it has no artistic elements to be copyrighted and probably isn't innovative enough to qualify for a patent. These are very basic mistakes you're making here.

**Asterios**

Peregrine wrote:
Asterios wrote:
no the article said using exact artwork would violate the IP could still make a space marine, but without the icons, but then that brings up another question what about people who draw the icons on their pieces? is that a violation of IP?

These questions are why "IP lawyer" is a profession. There is a gray area where a new design is not an exact copy/paste of an existing thing but clearly uses very similar design elements and is intended to be a copy, and the only way to find out for sure is to get the lawyers involved. Alternatively you can just avoid trying to make the closest possible copy of someone else's IP and do your own thing.

actually you can make that part patent laws are very limited and much shorter in term then Copyrights and such, it is why I can make my old '80's G.I.Joe stuff with relative ease and not break the law, their patents are expired, now I can't use any of their logos or maybe even names but the vehicle designs I can.

...

No. Seriously, you need to do some basic research on how IP law works. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are all very different things. Those old toy designs would be protected by copyright, and their names/logos/etc would be protected by trademarks. Patents do not apply because they protect functional devices, not artistic elements like the design of a toy. And the hypothetical car part is likely protected by none of the above, because it has no artistic elements to be copyrighted and probably isn't innovative enough to qualify for a patent. These are very basic mistakes you're making here.

actually a Patent is the design, the logos on said design are trademarks while the names are copyrights, but the actual toy design itself is just a patent, now any unique icons on it could be trademarked and copyrighted but not the vehicle design since that is the patent. or technically a Design Patent. as opposed to a Utility Patent which you are describing.

**455_PWR**

Morality? Ha!

Games Workshop made the miniatures, copyrighted them, and can sell whatever they want. They spent money on sculpting, production, etc. It makes total sense to produce and sell something you invested funds into. They could bring anything back if they wanted. They were production miniatures after all. None of the minis brought back were convention exclusives or limited edition miniatures, so not sure why there would be any complaints....

The only folks upset are those who bought to resell at rip off rates (like metal characters being sold for $30-$80). Those folks deserve to have gw spite them by helping the gaming community, making desirable minis affordable and accessable again.

As for collectors, everyone knows gw stuff doesn't go up in value per say. You collect and paint and army, if you sell later you will most likely lose money or break even.

Folks will think twice before they hoard minis to resell now. GW can make these production runs at anytime in the future, and making to order costs them nothing (no risk). Great job gw thinking about the community and shoving it up scalpers rears

**MechaEmperor7000**

I could not be bothered to read the other responses because when I start seeing the same two people dominating the thread, there's probably a heated debate going on that I don't wanna be dragged into.

THAT SAID. I voted it's not immoral (as in it's ok) however this is a personal opinion. Do not see it as immoral because it's not going to steal sales from the parent company; the majority of players would be after those models for their aesthetics and parts, not because they would be cheaper (and in most cases they are not cheaper. Anyone who've tried to hunt down the old metal Wraithguard will know what I mean). If the Company decides to start producing these models again, then I would see it as immoral if they didn't stop.

Basically I feel that for a hobby like ours, the parts should always be made accessible for conversions and displays. For a hobbyist, not having access to those parts is the true immorality.

Legal-wise, again, recasts should only exist until the parent company responds, then they should politely step down when that happens.

**Traditio**

If it's immoral, it's because it would somehow offend against justice. There would be a failure to give to each according to his due. There would have to be some way in which GW is being violated.

Does that hold? I don't know.

**hobojebus**

It's pure economics if you don't provide a product at a price people find reasonable they'll go elsewhere.

Recasters wouldn't have a business if GW had more reasonable prices in the first place.

I'm not going to look down on someone that buys a model at half price when I view the full price as being insane.

**ulgurstasta**

Do I think it's immoral to recast an 20 year old toy soldier in my basement for my own use?

Of course not, that's absurd.

**Hanskrampf**

hobojebus wrote:
It's pure economics if you don't provide a product at a price people find reasonable they'll go elsewhere.

Recasters wouldn't have a business if GW had more reasonable prices in the first place.

I'm not going to look down on someone that buys a model at half price when I view the full price as being insane.

True.
I know the recaster prices. The Start Collecting! boxes (and other heavily discounted boxes) for example are just not worth it buying as recasts. Sure, they are cheaper, but the difference is not enough to deal with the cons of resin vs plastic.

But a full set of the OOP Juan Diaz' daemonettes for ~11 USD vs ~80 USD (or more) from Ebay? Well...

**AllSeeingSkink**

I'm impressed how people fail to separate morality from legality. Morality is a bigger issue than legality when it comes to recasting for personal use because realistically GW are incapable of policing it. The law is only relevant in so much as it's enforceable.

Morally speaking, I have no issue with recasting OOP models. Selling those recasts as if they were the real thing, morally that's wrong, but I think as long as it's clear, I don't have a problem with it morally speaking.

Models that aren't OOP I think it's morally wrong to support recasters over buying from the source. Recasters don't have the overheads that the original company has and by supporting the recasters you aren't supporting someone who is contributing to the good of the hobby. I think it shows selfishness more than anything. Even if the sculptors are salaried, where do you think the money for their salaries comes from? Even if you think GW are burning money and don't want to support it, that doesn't magically morally grant you the right recast and sell it.

But OOP stuff, the longer a company decides to not support a product they've released I think the less moral right they have to try and exert control over it.

But that aside, the poll is poorly worded.

The thread title is:

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

I think GW aren't immoral if they say no to OOP recasts. But then the poll title says...

"Buying recast OOP Models"

So if I vote "Yes", am I voting "Yes, it's immoral for GW to so no to recasters" or is it "Yes, it's immoral to recast".

I don't think GW are immoral if they go after recasters, but I think in general the penalties for copyright infringement are absurd and the penalties in some cases may be immoral.

**CptJake**

I think GW has a moral obligation to protect the investments of their shareholders, and that includes fighting IP violations/taking legal action against those who infringe on their IP.

**Backspacehacker**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm impressed how people fail to separate morality from legality. Morality is a bigger issue than legality when it comes to recasting for personal use because realistically GW are incapable of policing it. The law is only relevant in so much as it's enforceable.

Morally speaking, I have no issue with recasting OOP models. Selling those recasts as if they were the real thing, morally that's wrong, but I think as long as it's clear, I don't have a problem with it morally speaking.

Models that aren't OOP I think it's morally wrong to support recasters over buying from the source. Recasters don't have the overheads that the original company has and by supporting the recasters you aren't supporting someone who is contributing to the good of the hobby. I think it shows selfishness more than anything. Even if the sculptors are salaried, where do you think the money for their salaries comes from? Even if you think GW are burning money and don't want to support it, that doesn't magically morally grant you the right recast and sell it.

But OOP stuff, the longer a company decides to not support a product they've released I think the less moral right they have to try and exert control over it.

But that aside, the poll is poorly worded.

The thread title is:

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

I think GW aren't immoral if they say no to OOP recasts. But then the poll title says...

"Buying recast OOP Models"

So if I vote "Yes", am I voting "Yes, it's immoral for GW to so no to recasters" or is it "Yes, it's immoral to recast".

I don't think GW are immoral if they go after recasters, but I think in general the penalties for copyright infringement are absurd and the penalties in some cases may be immoral.

I suppose it was a bad wording, but it was sorta a weird thing to broach.

I am still impressed at the ratio of people who are saying yay or nay to this.

**JohnHwangDD**

GW has a legal right NOT to sell things. A lot of IP gets bought up to bury it in favor of other IP that gets sold with less competition and more protection. GW is absolutely right to demand people not recast and either pay the going market rate, or else do without.

**AllSeeingSkink**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW has a legal right NOT to sell things.

I don't disagree, but I think when they stop selling something they start to lose the morale high ground when it comes to dictating what gamers do with their models. This thread is about the morality of it, not the legality.

That said I don't necessarily think GW is bad for going after recasters who sell stuff for profit, but I also don't think it's immoral for gamers to try and obtain OOP models from alternative sources or recast the models themselves for personal use.

**JohnHwangDD**

Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

**Asterios**

The real point is if someone is recasting for their own use and tell no one, then who would find out? now if someone is recasting for sales then someone will find out, me I have no problem with people recasting for their own use, but recasting to sell I do have an issue with since they are using someone else's idea to profit.

**Backspacehacker**

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

While that its a valid point, that is not the goal of this thread,

We are asking specifically on OOP models, things like EPIC or BFG which GW abandon years ago, and has had no indication of bringing it back.

Is it immoral to buy those models from recasters, if GW is doing as it is now, showing no interest what so ever in recasting things like BFG.

**CptJake**

Backspacehacker wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

While that its a valid point, that is not the goal of this thread,

We are asking specifically on OOP models, things like EPIC or BFG which GW abandon years ago, and has had no indication of bringing it back.

Is it immoral to buy those models from recasters, if GW is doing as it is now, showing no interest what so ever in recasting things like BFG.

So you're really asking "Is recasting for profit immoral?"

Because if it is, and you buy from/support that activity, you are supporting/encouraging immoral behavior.

My personal answer is Yes, it is immoral to steal/profit from GW's IP, regardless if they are currently selling the item or not. Others will have a different opinion. Hopefully GW sues them into bankruptcy if they act on that opinion.

**Asterios**

Backspacehacker wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

While that its a valid point, that is not the goal of this thread,

We are asking specifically on OOP models, things like EPIC or BFG which GW abandon years ago, and has had no indication of bringing it back.

Is it immoral to buy those models from recasters, if GW is doing as it is now, showing no interest what so ever in recasting things like BFG.

the problem is the question may have already been answered, there is a seller who is selling old BFG ships thru Shapeways, GW knows of this and have known for awhile (in fact even one of the designers of the game knows even) and yet the seller is still selling them.

**JohnHwangDD**

Backspacehacker wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Quite honestly, GW should fething bury those recasters for supressing demand for actual legal product. Especially going after the home casters for maximum statutory damages.

It impacts my ability to get things via GW official Made to Order in the future, and I'm not happy about that. I want the option to get actual, new GW Necromunda and Dogs of War items, and that will happen via M2O. But not if the market is killed by recasters.

While that its a valid point, that is not the goal of this thread,

We are asking specifically on OOP models, things like EPIC or BFG which GW abandon years ago, and has had no indication of bringing it back.

What makes you think that they are abandoned, given that GW continues to license BFG. It's not like they didn't just bring back Blood Bowl, for which there was nothing going on there. And it's not like the new kits like the 40k IKTs and other FW items aren't based on GW's Epic IP.

It's definitely tied to this thread.

**Talizvar**

It all really boils down to: you are making a copy of someone else's work.
My painted picture, my poem, my thesis, my sculpture, my program, my recipe what would give you the right to copying my hard work for sale or your own use?
Make your own item or buy that particular item from that person.
It only makes sense if you actually want to have what someone made, paying them for it could ensure they make more stuff you like.

Shapeways for me is becoming the moral minefield far more than recasting.
The 3d model is an actual "new" work that can be altered but it may be based visually on someone else's intellectual property.
IP lawyers must drink an awful lot.

**Asterios**

Talizvar wrote:
It all really boils down to: you are making a copy of someone else's work.
My painted picture, my poem, my thesis, my sculpture, my program, my recipe what would give you the right to copying my hard work for sale or your own use?
Make your own item or buy that particular item from that person.
It only makes sense if you actually want to have what someone made, paying them for it could ensure they make more stuff you like.

Shapeways for me is becoming the moral minefield far more than recasting.
The 3d model is an actual "new" work that can be altered but it may be based visually on someone else's intellectual property.
IP lawyers must drink an awful lot.

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did? have you ever made a mix tape? or recorded a show on TV before? or even painted a GW icon symbol on one of your models? or shared a story someone did? and the list goes on and on, yet according to copyright laws those are violations of it. its a very fine line between what is accepted and not.

**Scott-S6**

Backspacehacker wrote:

We are asking specifically on OOP models, things like EPIC or BFG which GW abandon years ago, and has had no indication of bringing it back.

Is it immoral to buy those models from recasters, if GW is doing as it is now, showing no interest what so ever in recasting things like BFG

You do realise that both of those are coming back right?

But to answer your question - yes, I have a problem with helping someone make money from direct copying of someone else's IP.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?

Huge difference between using a recipe and selling that recipe.

**Asterios**

Scott-S6 wrote:

Asterios wrote:

problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?
Huge difference between using a recipe and selling that recipe.

yes but the original question is not about selling but using for your own use.

**Stormonu**

Legally, they have the right to stop recasting.

Personally, I believe the entire process of copyright is a morally abhorant manifestation of greed and should be done away with.

**Talizvar**

Asterios wrote:
Problem is people use other peoples ideas all the time, have you ever used a recipe before? one that you did not create but someone else did?

The important matter is that in order for us to progress as a society we need to build on someone else's ideas in order to innovate.
Some means of initial profit and credit need to be given.
Typically I get my recipe out of a cookbook I have purchased or ones published on cooking sites that claim they are for free use.
Usually I modify them after being used a few times (innovation) usually written in that purchased book or on the website printout and publishing my changes in the comments for that recipe (to give credit and others to benefit).
No harm no foul so I believe.

have you ever made a mix tape?

Yep, typically from my own purchased collection.
I think the question you were reaching for here is "and then gave it to someone?".

or recorded a show on TV before?

I believe this is a standard feature on most cable or satellite systems so fail to see an issue here.

or even painted a GW icon symbol on one of your models?

On a GW model?
There would be few models I would want to out of context.
Plus many of their "icon symbols" had been borrowed from many historical sources.
How is this an issue when I am given slide transfers of the same said symbols.

or shared a story someone did?

Shared how?
Loaned my book to them?
Libraries have set a precedent.

and the list goes on and on, yet according to copyright laws those are violations of it. its a very fine line between what is accepted and not.

I agree on the fine line statement.
I would take existing GW model components and modify some parts and sculpt features on them (In this case for 1000 sons before the CSM bits came out for them).
I then cast those sculpted/modified parts for ease of building up my army.
I then swapped the parts I made with CSM models.
Somewhere there was a violation of copyright.
GW was not making those models yet.
I was still using 1 for 1 purchased models so their income did not take a hit.
I feel I had done "the right thing" while I am sure someone out there would be happy to say how wrong I am.