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 woke up to the news of Cults3D saying that they reveived a communication from GW's legal dept requesting them to remove 200+ designs that according to GW violate their copyrights. Cults3d is trying to give creators of paid STLs a chance to edit offending items from the models, and then repost the STLs, but will fight GW on free STLs as they see them as fanworks that might be protected.

From now on it seems that the upload of STLs that might infringe on GW's IP will have to be moderated.

We'll see if GW, and Cults3D can manage to come to an amicable solution for everybody.

M.

this is kind of an agoing IP offensive as GW did not stop it just took a while until it reached this site (other smaller creators got the letter over the last year)

and I just opened Cults3D and one of the popular suggestions was this one: https://cults3d.com/en/3d-model/game/ancient-boom-battle-tank

well, with GW releasing a plastic model and this being a 1:1 copy not a big suprise that they ask to take it down

Yeah that's a lot of almost exact copies of GW models they're selling. No sympathy when people are doing that.

Honestly so far I've yet to see GW make a big mistake with their IP challenging on 3D printing.

You can claim "fan works" all you want, but if your fanwork is an identical copy (or near enough) it doesn't matter if you're not charging, you're still infringing on copyright. Plus its not like a fanwork when you draw a bit of artwork or such; you're distributing an stl to make a print that's a near copy of a GW model that they sell.


I'm with GW on this.

Agreed with the above. I'll care when they kill peoples original (re)interpretations of GW designs, but if its basically 1:1 copies then I'm 100% behind GW.

I for one blame the people who have been selling the 1:1 stl's of GW's new conversion bits for HH. Ripping off brand new kits seems like a quick way to draw attention to yourself. But who knows; maybe GW will just have a seasonal culling. Although, I will confess that I have downloading a lot of files lately. Just in case.

My work hasn't been hit. But I just release bits that require other kits or official models. I do have one that's pretty much a 1:1. Also I release everything free so maybe that's why.

Don’t feel sorry here, GW is in its right here, goes for both free and paid STLs

But what about models from games that GW has discontinued, what are the ruling of thouse? Can they still claim copyright for something they stopped making 15 years ago??

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
But what about models from games that GW has discontinued, what are the ruling of thouse? Can they still claim copyright for something they stopped making 15 years ago??

Yes.

Just because a firm doesn't produce something doesn't mean that copyrights/trademarks/ips and such just expire. Copyright is typically 70 years after the creators death; bit more complicated for firms. Meanwhile trademarks are a whole set of rules of their own where companies have to enforce their protection or they will lose them. So even if GW hasn't released a model for something in 15 years doesn't mean that model enters common use.

 Overread wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
But what about models from games that GW has discontinued, what are the ruling of thouse? Can they still claim copyright for something they stopped making 15 years ago??

Yes.

Just because a firm doesn't produce something doesn't mean that copyrights/trademarks/ips and such just expire. Copyright is typically 70 years after the creators death; bit more complicated for firms. Meanwhile trademarks are a whole set of rules of their own where companies have to enforce their protection or they will lose them. So even if GW hasn't released a model for something in 15 years doesn't mean that model enters common use.

IC.

So the challenge then if one wants to make something GW dropped 10-15 years ago is to make it as clouse as possible to the original look, whitout looking original?? (if you understood that)

aka i have some proxxy Tau BFG ships. They dont look in detail at all like thouse GW made, but the overall visual impression is the same, one can look at it and say; that is Tau!, but if you took that ship and placed it next to the original there is alot of detail changes. Shape is the same, identity is the same, but details are not.

This latest move is for display purposes only...

I suspect GW already know trying to control the internet is cat herding at its finest

But they go though the motions for the benefit of showing shareholders something is being done to protect the IP

FrozenDwarf wrote:

 Overread wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
But what about models from games that GW has discontinued, what are the ruling of thouse? Can they still claim copyright for something they stopped making 15 years ago??

Yes.

Just because a firm doesn't produce something doesn't mean that copyrights/trademarks/ips and such just expire. Copyright is typically 70 years after the creators death; bit more complicated for firms. Meanwhile trademarks are a whole set of rules of their own where companies have to enforce their protection or they will lose them. So even if GW hasn't released a model for something in 15 years doesn't mean that model enters common use.

IC.

So the challenge then if one wants to make something GW dropped 10-15 years ago is to make it as clouse as possible to the original look, whitout looking original?? (if you understood that)

aka i have some proxxy Tau BFG ships. They dont look in detail at all like thouse GW made, but the overall visual impression is the same, one can look at it and say; that is Tau!, but if you took that ship and placed it next to the original there is alot of detail changes. Shape is the same, identity is the same, but details are not.

There are limits on what GW can claim copyright on and so far their attitude with 3D printing has been fairly sane. So you can get close too but not exactly the same. Some things like the shape of certain bits of armour or styles or symbols etc... they can claim on (some totally some in context).

Turnip Jedi wrote:This latest move is for display purposes only...

I suspect GW already know trying to control the internet is cat herding at its finest

But they go though the motions for the benefit of showing shareholders something is being done to protect the IP

I'd say its more than display purposes only. GW can't control the internet. But they can police the big name stores on the 3D print market. If Etsy, Cults, My Mini Factory etc.... If all those stores are policed and managed to ensure that copyright material isn't posted, then it will control the majority of the consumer market engagement. It will mean that anyone looking to make their money from such work is more likely to not want to copy GW models and to instead do their own designs so that they can trade without having to use less popular/less well known sites.

I hope it doesn't hit the reduced-scale market. I don't really care to 3D print exact copies of GW stuff, but 6 to 10mm models are a lot of what I've been printing.

Also some of the stuff that is obviously a copy of what GW has done, but much much better, like the "Fantasy Football" Lizardmen.

Also, bits I guess, I haven't really bought any, but alternative heads and whatnot.

 Overread wrote:

 FrozenDwarf wrote:
But what about models from games that GW has discontinued, what are the ruling of thouse? Can they still claim copyright for something they stopped making 15 years ago??

Yes.

Just because a firm doesn't produce something doesn't mean that copyrights/trademarks/ips and such just expire. Copyright is typically 70 years after the creators death; bit more complicated for firms. Meanwhile trademarks are a whole set of rules of their own where companies have to enforce their protection or they will lose them. So even if GW hasn't released a model for something in 15 years doesn't mean that model enters common use.

who cares what the law says? If there is no way to get it and they have the copyright but refuse to produce it then feth um. Print away I say. They need to get with the times. Also given enough time say 10k years in the future what won't be copyright?

And finally all ideas come from older ideas no one owns knights. Putting them in space shouldn't make you the owner. Fans contribute as many ideas to companys as company's themselfs. Plus with data science a thing any ideas on the the web are taken from you with almost no recourse often without your knoledge. Most ideas that get copywriter where stolen from someone else.