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 have a question, folks.
I've notice that, since getting back into the game, there is a thriving recast market for minis, specifically for FW and GW. I was having a pseudo-debate with a guy the other night, and we couldn't agree about the specific legal ramifications of buying/selling/owning them.
Leaving the moral side out of the equation, my understanding is as follows:
1. It is illegal to produce and sell recasts as de facto original production models from the company that owns the IP.
2. It is also illegal to resell same.
3. It is NOT illegal to own recasts, provided one does not violate point 2.
4. (Not really a legality so much as a policy) It is forbidden to use recasts at any sanctioned GW tournament.
Do I read this right?

I mean, legally no, I don't think you're culpable for purchasing an illegally copied work. If I steal an artist's work and sell a copy of it myself I can be sued but the artist couldn't sue those who I sold the stolen art to.

Though I suppose if you could prove the customer knew the art was stolen...? Like, supposing I'm like an art guy, and I buy those stolen paintings from the ESG museum outside of boston the rembrandts or whatever, I'm sure I'd be prosecuted if I then displayed them in my gallery like 'LOOK AT MY REMBRANDTS!'

 CATACLYSMUS wrote:
I have a question, folks.
I've notice that, since getting back into the game, there is a thriving recast market for minis, specifically for FW and GW. I was having a pseudo-debate with a guy the other night, and we couldn't agree about the specific legal ramifications of buying/selling/owning them.
Leaving the moral side out of the equation, my understanding is as follows:
1. It is illegal to produce and sell recasts as de facto original production models from the company that owns the IP.
2. It is also illegal to resell same.
3. It is NOT illegal to own recasts, provided one does not violate point 2.
4. (Not really a legality so much as a policy) It is forbidden to use recasts at any sanctioned GW tournament.
Do I read this right?

Kind of.

Points 1 and 2 are true if you were talking about recasters in countries that acknowledge and enforce the concept of copyright law. Unfortunately for GW the vast majority of recasts come out of China.

Humans are exceptionally good at rationalizing away activities that benefit them individually but harm the community in the long run.

You said "leaving the moral issue aside," but what you're doing here is trying to use amateur legal parsing to assuage your moral concerns.

If you want to buy recasts, I am not going to stop you. But own what you're doing.

So, legally, the vast majority of infringement isn't illegal in any sense (i.e. prohibited with criminal penalties). At least not in the States. It's civil liability only (someone CAN choose to sue you if they want to).

There are a FEW exceptions, mostly for movies/tv/music in limited format and circumstances (as an example, see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). You can also get into issues of fraud/forgery. I've never heard of anything criminalizing the purchase of sculptures though. Doesn't mean it's not out there, but I've never heard of it.

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Humans are exceptionally good at rationalizing away activities that benefit them individually but harm the community in the long run.

You said "leaving the moral issue aside," but what you're doing here is trying to use amateur legal parsing to assuage your moral concerns.

If you want to buy recasts, I am not going to stop you. But own what you're doing.

No, he's asking about the legality of the issue, not the morality.

The two are frequently not the same, many things are legal but of questionable morality, and vice versa.

On your points.

1. Yes, but their are places in this world where it isn't enforced much, or at all. Illegal implies someone is going to stop them. This doesn't appear to be happening.

2. Yes.. But... proving something is recast is pretty tough. And even harder to get prosecuted.

3. This is true.

4. Refer to the point where someone can tell. I've seen recast forgeworld that is many times better than actual forgeworld in quality. I've seen plastics from china that are equal in quality to anything GW produces. And I've seen stupid crappy poor sculpts and casts that are modeled and painted to a level they make most Gamer's efforts look very sad.

Use recasts if you want. No one can tell. You do you.

Audustum wrote:
So, legally, the vast majority of infringement isn't illegal in any sense (i.e. prohibited with criminal penalties). At least not in the States. It's civil liability only (someone CAN choose to sue you if they want to).

There are a FEW exceptions, mostly for movies/tv/music in limited format and circumstances (as an example, see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). You can also get into issues of fraud/forgery. I've never heard of anything criminalizing the purchase of sculptures though. Doesn't mean it's not out there, but I've never heard of it.

It's largely similar in the U.K. Recasting isn't theft or any other criminal offense, it's a civil infringement around IP law. There are lines, essentially when operating at a commercial level or counterfeiting (selling a fake as an original, rather than a copy, so there's an element of deception.)

largely nobody cares either way bar squeaky wheels at the far ends of the pro / con spectrum

Dont ask, Dont tell

No one needs to know and no one cares except the people people that pat them selves on the back because they fought the man, or the men on high horses.

Legally its illegal but basically unenforceable and or grayer than the grayest gray

also last time i checked i though recast related threads were no bueno.

I have 8 Reaper Chaincannons, none of them are from GW, all told they cost me ~$40. As opposed to the $440 plus shipping that would cost from GW.

They weren't called Reaper Chaincannons, I think they were called Chainguns, no copyright issues, just a generic moniker and a look that's close enough to the actual model to be clear to my opponent.

If a TO wants to give me a hard time about it, I will direct them to the appropriate anatomy.

 CATACLYSMUS wrote:

4. (Not really a legality so much as a policy) It is forbidden to use recasts at any sanctioned GW tournament.

Technically, yes. But, save for a few from a certain Russian company (I have their Nurgle Leviathan that is quite obvious it's made from mashups of several FW kits...) how would they know? Short of removing the paint from a model you're never going to know if it is original or not, discounting ones that were never made in a certain medium etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
I have 8 Reaper Chaincannons, none of them are from GW, all told they cost me ~$40. As opposed to the $440 plus shipping that would cost from GW.

They weren't call Reaper Chaincannons, I think they were called Chainguns, no copyright issues, just a generic moniker and a look that's close enough to the actual model to be clear to my opponent.

If a TO wants to give me a hard time about it, I will direct them to the appropriate anatomy.

3rd party models=/=recasts.

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Humans are exceptionally good at rationalizing away activities that benefit them individually but harm the community in the long run.

You said "leaving the moral issue aside," but what you're doing here is trying to use amateur legal parsing to assuage your moral concerns.

If you want to buy recasts, I am not going to stop you. But own what you're doing.

So, I'm a CEO of a major corporation, and I just realized that I cant pay my yacht payment this month. I REALLY love my yacht. Therefore, I 'restructure' my company a little to ensure my cost-saving measures guarantee the board will vote to allow me a larger bonus so I can pay for my yacht. The unfortunate side effect is that, in my restructuring, 100 people have lost their jobs, and their families now have to struggle to buy food.
Legal? Absolutely.
Moral? Not a chance in hell.
Amateur legal parsing? Maybe. I dont get paid for my opinion, so I guess I am an amateur.
A bit of hyperbole perhaps, but the lines between moral and legal have been separate to some degree since man first put laws on paper.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, he's asking about the legality of the issue, not the morality.

It's perfectly obvious what he was asking about, and I chose to address that.

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Humans are exceptionally good at rationalizing away activities that benefit them individually but harm the community in the long run.

You said "leaving the moral issue aside," but what you're doing here is trying to use amateur legal parsing to assuage your moral concerns.

If you want to buy recasts, I am not going to stop you. But own what you're doing.

^ This.

Oh, this looks like it's going to end well...

 CATACLYSMUS wrote:

So, I'm a CEO of a major corporation, and I just realized that I cant pay my yacht payment this month. I REALLY love my yacht. Therefore, I 'restructure' my company a little to ensure my cost-saving measures guarantee the board will vote to allow me a larger bonus so I can pay for my yacht. The unfortunate side effect is that, in my restructuring, 100 people have lost their jobs, and their families now have to struggle to buy food.
Legal? Absolutely.
Moral? Not a chance in hell.
Amateur legal parsing? Maybe. I dont get paid for my opinion, so I guess I am an amateur.
A bit of hyperbole perhaps, but the lines between moral and legal have been separate to some degree since man first put laws on paper.

And if that CEO came to me asking about the technical details of corporate restructuring, I would tell him the same thing I told you: do whatever you want, but own what you're doing instead of hiding behind legalities.

Edit: rephrased the last sentence to make more sense.

The exact legalities will depend upon the country and/or state you are in. Dakka is really not a good spot to go to for legal advice. Talk with a lawyer.

Before the thread gets shut...

Sometimes GW prices are insulting frankly.

Recasts have become exceptionally good in recent years, better even that genuine Forgeworld for sure.

Would you pay much more for an inferior product?

I told this to GW in the big survey, they need to get their act together.

Interesting side question - where do scratchbuilts fall in this? Is there a line on those where they cross from acceptable (recombining from existing parts vs. styrene, greenstuff and 3d printed parts)? How does scratch building compare vs. recasting (I.e., if you scratch built a Land Raider from non-GW parts so it’s indistinguishable from a real one, versus a recast version, what’s the difference?)

So model shaming now? I couldn't care less where a dudes models come from. What about conversions and scratch builds?

Illegal? If your making them and selling them off as real. Thats called counterfeiting. But thats it.

Other than that. There are models...

Recasts are duplications of someone else's sculpt (typically GWs).

Scratchbuilds are custom sculpts.

Very different.

Now, if you're scanning an existing sculpt so you can 3D print it (or it's parts), that's not a scratcbuild.

Thread is gonna get shut soon. But making recasts with intent to sell is illegal (some countries don't care). Selling recasts is part of that, and also illegal (if you know about it; oftentimes, people purchase recasts and resell later w/out even knowing it). This isn't illegal. Purchasing recasts isn't illegal, but is frowned upon. In other words...don't support recasters.

Scratch built is not illegal and is HIGHLY encouraged among the gaming community.

 Stormonu wrote:
Interesting side question - where do scratchbuilts fall in this? Is there a line on those where they cross from acceptable (recombining from existing parts vs. styrene, greenstuff and 3d printed parts)? How does scratch building compare vs. recasting (I.e., if you scratch built a Land Raider from non-GW parts so it’s indistinguishable from a real one, versus a recast version, what’s the difference?)

Typically if you're skilled, dedicated, and invested enough to run your own recast-sculpting project, and you aren't trying to profit off it, people's reaction will more often be "wow!" than "you cheapskate." Increasingly common 3D printing may be blurring that line, but I don't think we're quite there yet, especially since many 3D projects I've seen are filling holes in GW's offerings rather than reproducing them wholesale.

Bharring wrote:
Recasts are duplications of someone else's sculpt (typically GWs).

Scratchbuilds are custom sculpts.

Very different.

Now, if you're scanning an existing sculpt so you can 3D print it (or it's parts), that's not a scratcbuild.

This is an interesting one because what if some one scratch builds an EXACT replica of a kit (say a land raider with exact or near exact dimensions then casts that?

i dont know if the law is up to par for this sort of situation and definitely not up to date for new more affordable technology (As usual)

If it's pure coincidence? A "clean room implementation"? Then no problem. But it's not. Someone creating a cool-looking Land Raider model isn't going to be exactly like GW's without trying to be.

If it *is* a recreation of GWs model, exactly, then it's effectively the same as a recast. Most of what people say when talking about recasts is directed at the duplication, not the method of duplication.

I personally wouldn't do it.

Here in the US I would assume the feds would consider these to be counterfeit goods. They shut down these operations all the time and seize the counterfeit goods (the $5 Ray Bans, designer bags, etc) but aren't going to go after the customers.

The other legal angle is your own exposure purchasing these things. Obviously paying by credit card is out, but even Paypal still provides an email to the seller. It would be foolish to think that the criminal enterprise you have bought from isn't going to use the details you've given them to try and scam you in other ways, or sell it to those who would.

Then there is the safety aspect of the materials used. They may be perfectly fine or might be made with cheaper, more toxic chemicals. Probably best to use a mask when working with these until they are primed up.

"Copyright" is about duplication, not method of duplication. Whether you're recasting, scanning and 3d printing, casting a magic spell, or whatever - the problem is in producing a duplicate of a creative work.

There's nothing directly illegal (AFAIK) about "recasting" itself - the legal trouble is the violation of copyright (and in some cases trademark). This applies equally regardless of method.

None of that applies in a "scratchbuild", even if it hews closely to the structure of the game or lore. Because creating a "Land Raider" or "Demon Prince" to represent the concept is a creative work, it's regarded highly - often even more highly than buying equivelant GW kits. There's not much in the way of creative work in copypastaing GWs kits directly, though.

Bharring wrote:
If it's pure coincidence? A "clean room implementation"? Then no problem. But it's not. Someone creating a cool-looking Land Raider model isn't going to be exactly like GW's without trying to be.

If it *is* a recreation of GWs model, exactly, then it's effectively the same as a recast. Most of what people say when talking about recasts is directed at the duplication, not the method of duplication.

Yet GW themselves used that very thing as a defence in the Chapterhouse trial, claiming that all their staff worked in a bubble and weren't influenced by an aything outside it.

If it's good enough for GW...

Bharring wrote:
If it's pure coincidence? A "clean room implementation"? Then no problem. But it's not. Someone creating a cool-looking Land Raider model isn't going to be exactly like GW's without trying to be.

If it *is* a recreation of GWs model, exactly, then it's effectively the same as a recast. Most of what people say when talking about recasts is directed at the duplication, not the method of duplication.

So would you consider our resident mad man blackadders thunder hawk a "recast" or a scratch build?

its honestly amazing