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.

First off guys, these are not recast of any other companies or ripoffs of ForgeWorld models. These have been sculpted by using plasticard as well as some greenstuff. Just to clear that up for everyone, these are completely legit.

Due to demands of the local gamers I finally have gotten around to
making a mold of my orginals and have a few resin ones to sell.

These are unpainted and will come to you unassembled. They are to scale for 40K minis, I need to take a photo of a marine for scale though.

Component pictures, note you get 5 wings and hatches:










Picture for you with marines











These do not open up, they are just the closed pods. The doors are able to be glued down though if you wanted to model the inside, I just never had. It comes in 13 pieces, and is easy to assemble.

I would like $35 plus shipping.

I also wouldnt mind trading some for a FW Trygon.. (just about the only thing I need atm).
PM me if you are interested, I check PMs often.

I have nothing but good references on bartertown under the same user name.

Thanks!

I don't think this is exactly legal...

May I ask you where you are coming up with that?

These are COMPLETELY hand crafted with greenstuff and plasticard.

If I choose to cast my own sculpts, it is legal. There is another company out there that makes wood Droppods that also resemble these, they are perfectly legal as well.

FYI, I have consulted a GW IP lawyer, and while they may not like the idea, it is legal.

Please refrain from saying I am doing something illegal unless you have the information to back it up.

P.S. These weigh in at 7 ounces each.

Simply put, you don't own the copyright to this imagery and design. As such, it is illegal to make and sell these imitations of the GW/FW model. The original templates that these were based on for the paper version were released by GW with the specific prohibitions on sales.

I will bite,

How do you explain this seller:
http://www.thewarstore.com/product9157.html

this guy:
http://www.retribution40k.net/Projects/Droppods/droppods.htm

http://screamingdragon.com/Merchant5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=GH&Product_Code=GHB0001&Category_Code=MINI

In any case, I know I have spoken to an IP lawyer on the matters, if the moderators wish to close my post they can, just please PM me first.

Thank you.

First off those are great models.

Second off this is a one of those cases where really short of it going to trial we can't make the call.

Do they look like GW pods? Yeah.
Are they exactly the same? No.

If I make fighters with vertically split wings the form an X at what point do they become my own creation and at what point are they pirates of Lucasfilm's X wing fighters? We'd have to go to court.

So I'd say he's fine advertising them on dakka. We've allowed people to peddle their original castings of female cadians so Nvillacci's drop pods and other original works (as long as they're not recasts) should be fine.

Spot on KK.

Lormax & LittleLeadMen - QFT or refrain IMO.

I field a DP Marine army.

Even fielded it at a GT.

Until GW make a cheap 'Troop Lander'-scratch and sell away.

You cannot copy what isn't. IP laws are a tricky thing Sir.

Great work on the scratch-built casts, I reckon.

This seller: http://www.thewarstore.com/product9157.html , has a design that, while reminiscent of the GW design, is clearly different. Different enough that it is legally in the safe zone. It has three fins, a completely different bottom, etc.


This site: http://www.retribution40k.net/Projects/Droppods/droppods.htm , while probably breaking GW's copyright for distribution, is not charging for the plans. They are available for free download, which may make it slightly more difficult for GW to charge them with a crime. That said, it's clearly a GW owned design, with ALL of the same minor detailing , shape, fins, etc. It is the same as the copywritten design, pattern sold by GW. On top of that, he includes the Aquilla and even the Dark Angels symbol on his, which are copyright items. He's not kosher, but with a free download on a minor site, it is unlikely GW cares too much.

This site: http://screamingdragon.com/Merchant5/merchant.mvc?...ode=GHB0001&Category_Code=MINI Doesn't look ANYTHING like the FW drop pod. It has a clearly different shape, structure and no discernable details.

Your drop pod is clearly a copy of the FW design. It shares the same number of fins and fin design. It shares all of the same major and even minor detail work, including the air vents on the lower wings, the pattern detail over each of the five doors, the inlay detail on the wings, etc. Simply put, you don't own the copyright to that design. As such, unless you receive a license to do so from the copyright holder, you do not have the legal right to reproduce that design and sell it.

I'm done here, there's nothing really more to say regarding the legality of this. It's pretty clear.

LittleLeadMen, while you're probably right, I find it incredibly rude to make an argumentative post and then say "I'm done here". A forum is not a mere soap box; if you aren't interested in having people reply to something you have to say, don't say it.

1. OP posted his sale ad
2. Second poster mentioned that he doesn't think this is legal
3. OP says "Please refrain from saying I am doing something illegal unless you have the information to back it up."
4. I then make the basic statement that the OP doesn't own the copyright.
5. Later, the OP says, I'll bite, what about these..... cites examples
6. My post answers those examples, cites the basic copyright law again. Then I make it clear I'm done.

I'm not going to sit around and debate this guy, or anyone else on the thread for days and days, which generally dissolve into pages of misinformed comments regarding copyright law, and/or the legitimacy of making this stuff because the originals are too expensive. That's pretty much what happens every single time.

I mentioned the copyright law. The OP cited examples TO ME and asked regarding them. I subsequently answered these examples, and cited the basic copyright issue again. Beyond that, there is nothing to discuss.

My posts were not written to engage the community as a whole, nor were they written to provide a platform or Devil's Advocate counter position for the community to discuss/debate. They were exclusively in response to the original posters own statements:"Please refrain from saying I am doing something illegal unless you have the information to back it up." (wherein I stated why he could not reproduce the design) and his second post that was clearly directed specifically at me, wherein he cited examples.

As such, I am "done here". There's nothing else for me to discuss. I'm not here to engage the community on the topic, nor even the OP beyond the small exchange that's already taken place. That's not rude at all, nor was it argumentative. It was a basic statement of fact, in specific reply to the OP addressing me.

The law is clear, and it doesn't need me as some sort of internet crusader to sit around and defend it for pages and pages ad nauseum. As such, like I said before, I'm done here and won't be taking part in any internet forum arguments, discussion of GW's IP law, it's fairness, the OP's right to take actions he sees fit, etc. And for the record, I don't personally take issue with the guy making and/or even selling these things. I do take issue when people make clearly false and/or disingenuous statements. For the OP to get defensive when someone calls him out on it is disingenuous. The OP knows what he's doing, we all know what he's doing. It is what it is.

Doesn't change a thing. Whatever the topic, to say "this is how it is, and that's that; don't bother replying, because I'm not going to discuss it any further" is bad form. No doubt you think your arguments are unanswerable (and maybe they are)--if so, let the weakness of his response bear that out.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
If I make fighters with vertically split wings the form an X at what point do they become my own creation and at what point are they pirates of Lucasfilm's X wing fighters? We'd have to go to court.

Don't forget, you'd have to refrain from making it too much like a Starfury/Thunderbolt, too.

Wow, sorry guys for stirring up a hornets nest!

In any case if anyone is interested in them, just PM me or email me. I have some good interest in these and will be busy for while making them.

I have my own beliefs on GWs policies, but that is for another discussion.

LittleLeadMen wrote:stuff

The OP said he had contacted a GW IP lawyer so he appears to have taken care of checking if he is infringing on his own and doesn't need your input. If you are so concerned about GW's copyright, inform them of your perceived infraction, so that they can pursue it on their own.

Tegus-
LittleLeadMen, while you're probably right, I find it incredibly rude to make an argumentative post and then say "I'm done here". A forum is not a mere soap box; if you aren't interested in having people reply to something you have to say, don't say it.

and

Doesn't change a thing. Whatever the topic, to say "this is how it is, and that's that; don't bother replying, because I'm not going to discuss it any further" is bad form. No doubt you think your arguments are unanswerable (and maybe they are)--if so, let the weakness of his response bear that out.

He's hard and fair, he's Tegeus Cromis.

EXALT.

Oh, and here is a pic of the 'Droop Pod' that the gentleman was saying broke no IP Laws.
I agree. Only the laws of Coolism.


We have a 'Porta-potty' near our workplace that looks like this...........I hope no Termies come out of it......

LOL

Very nice sculpts. I wish I had the ability o do that. =(

The reason GW probably would be cool with this is that these are supposed to be one-off sculpts. They usually won't freak in that sort of situation. Now, if this were instead an ongoing business... That's different. Further, GW doesn't make a drop pod so they are not losing any money on this.

That being said, LittleLeadMen is 100% correct. The pods are violative of GW IP. To get a good idea of whether or not something like this violates IP just ask yourself this question..."would someone mistake THIS for a GW model?" If the answer is "YES" then you have a very strong case for IP violation.

These sculpts are so damn nice they look almost identical to the FW pod. A clear violation but not necesarily one GW will pursue.

ender502

Just for the record, I only said that I THOUGHT that this would be illegal. I base it only on other threads and postings I've seen on this site and others. Sorry to imply anything as fact.

Aside from that, they are beautiful sculpts. If Dakka isn't going to have a problem with you selling them then I'm not going to have a problem with buying them You have PM

akira5665 wrote:

Oh, and here is a pic of the 'Droop Pod' that the gentleman was saying broke no IP Laws.
I agree. Only the laws of Coolism.


We have a 'Porta-potty' near our workplace that looks like this...........I hope no Termies come out of it......

ROFLMAO. I hope no smurfs come piling out either.

Man, if only someone would draw me military smurf with a bolter.

Holee crap I'd put it on a t-shirt. lol

ender502 wrote:That being said, LittleLeadMen is 100% correct. The pods are violative of GW IP. To get a good idea of whether or not something like this violates IP just ask yourself this question..."would someone mistake THIS for a GW model?" If the answer is "YES" then you have a very strong case for IP violation.

These sculpts are so damn nice they look almost identical to the FW pod. A clear violation but not necesarily one GW will pursue.

ender502

Being confused with GW droppods would only matter if he was selling them and calling them GW droppods (as in misrepresenting). And it's only a violation of copyright after it goes to trial. Can we have the backseat lawyers stop crapping up a good thread?

snooggums wrote:

ender502 wrote:That being said, LittleLeadMen is 100% correct. The pods are violative of GW IP. To get a good idea of whether or not something like this violates IP just ask yourself this question..."would someone mistake THIS for a GW model?" If the answer is "YES" then you have a very strong case for IP violation.

These sculpts are so damn nice they look almost identical to the FW pod. A clear violation but not necesarily one GW will pursue.

ender502

Being confused with GW droppods would only matter if he was selling them and calling them GW droppods (as in misrepresenting). And it's only a violation of copyright after it goes to trial. Can we have the backseat lawyers stop crapping up a good thread?

as opposed to the back seat moderating?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions as long as they obey forum rules, thats kinda the point in a forum in the first place

To be fair to Leadman, he's pretty much correct.

Now, while it takes a court to actually find that a copyright has been infringed, a lawyer can usually tell you if you are in a safe area or not.

I am not a lawyer, and I can't give legal advice, but I do know that GW has, in the past, brought civil actions against people duping minis. That's a clear case of copyright violation, of course, but it shows that GW has been an active litigant in the past.

Here are a few of the relevant sections of US code:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000106----000-.html
--> Which explains the exclusive rights of the holder of a copyright

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/501.html
--> which defines an action for copyright infringment.

The key bits here are that only a holder may copy a work, and that you can sue any person who violates any of the holders exclusive rights (including reproduction or creation of derivative works). I doubt any jury or judge would have a hard time seeing the striking resemblence between the models, it seems like it's a copy.

Here's where it gets interesting:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html

This section of the explains that a holder may forfeit his actual damages in exchange for statutory damages, which range from $750 to $30,000, or up to $150k if committed wilfully.

Add in the possibility of attornies' fees and costs, and I can assure you that GW could make your life a living hell if you didn't cease and desist when they asked.

So, while I can't say with 100% certainty that they're a violation of copyright, I would wager pretty heavily that it'd be a losing case.

Thanks for the concise details Polonius.

Nice work that, Sir.

In case anybody is still curious, here's a very recent case description out of AmJur that sums up this question pretty nicely:

"Competitor had access to creative doll that had a valid copyright registration and used that access in the manufacture of a competing doll, for purposes of establishing an inference of copying, in copyright infringement action; competitor's president saw copyrighted doll, directed that the artist draw a figure that looked like copyrighted doll, and from that drawing approved the manufacture of competing doll. JCW Investments, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 482 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2007).
Even without the evidence of access, execution and combination of features on copyrighted doll and competitor's doll would lead an objective observer to think they were the same, such that they were substantially similar, for purposes of establishing copyright infringement; despite the small cosmetic differences, both were plush dolls of middle-aged men sitting in armchairs that farted and told jokes, and both had crooked smiles that showed their teeth, balding heads with a fringe of black hair, a rather large protruding nose, blue pants that are identical colors, and white tank tops. JCW Investments, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 482 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2007)."

Edit: here's a link to the full case:

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/BC1FFWSM.pdf

snooggums wrote:
Being confused with GW droppods would only matter if he was selling them and calling them GW droppods (as in misrepresenting). And it's only a violation of copyright after it goes to trial. Can we have the backseat lawyers stop crapping up a good thread?

Uhhh, no. Misrepresentation is a seperate cause of action from copyright infringement. It is often appended to copyright actions considering the nature of misrepresentation. Copyright violation and misrepresentation have completely seperate elements. I suggest you go back and check your Gilberts.... back seat lawyering my aunt fanny.....

Only a violation if it goes to trial? No. That's like saying selling crack is only a crime if you get caught. Just ridiculous.

As to GW and copyrights... I have seen them shutdown sites just because the site offered ways to make models that were indistiguishable from GW's...even though they were hand crafted AND the guy who was making these was NOT selling them. Depending on the circumstance GW can be rather touchy.

They still are sweet models. Had I the free cash i'd pick up ...several.

ender502

i like them. no idea about legalltity, but then I couldnt give a monkeys either.

I built one of these using the templates these were based on. Worked great but took ages and I'd rather have it in resin.

Would you post to UK? I might grab a few on payday.

ender502 wrote:
Only a violation if it goes to trial? No. That's like saying selling crack is only a crime if you get caught. Just ridiculous.

Selling crack is a criminal offense. Copyright infringement is a civil case, and copyrights are there to protect the distribution rights of the creator. It has to go to court to show that it was infringing.

Comparing copyright infringement to criminal acts is very misleading and we end up with ads like how killing someone is like copying a movie from TV.

As to GW and copyrights... I have seen them shutdown sites just because the site offered ways to make models that were indistiguishable from GW's...even though they were hand crafted AND the guy who was making these was NOT selling them. Depending on the circumstance GW can be rather touchy.

All the cases I have seen (including the Warstore) had restrictions from GW based on threats of civil action, and they voluntarily shut down to avoid the costs of litigation since fighting it would be cheaper than going to court even if they were right.

snooggums wrote:
All the cases I have seen (including the Warstore) had restrictions from GW based on threats of civil action, and they voluntarily shut down to avoid the costs of litigation since fighting it would be cheaper than going to court even if they were right.

Are you seriously this obtuse or is this just a joke? Do you actually believe there is a substantive difference between a voluntary shutdown under duress and a shutdown by court order?

ender502

ender502 wrote:

snooggums wrote:
All the cases I have seen (including the Warstore) had restrictions from GW based on threats of civil action, and they voluntarily shut down to avoid the costs of litigation since fighting it would be cheaper than going to court even if they were right.

Are you seriously this obtuse or is this just a joke? Do you actually believe there is a substantive difference between a voluntary shutdown under duress and a shutdown by court order?

ender502

Yes, a voluntary shutdown because of threat of financial action covers people with free websites and people who's websites are shut down by their hosts because they think it would cost too much to prove they are right. Being shut down by a court order actually means that you were wrong, or are close to wrong enough that the courts have ordered you shut down. The first involves self preservation, the other is determined by a third neutral party.

It's the difference between closing shop because of a mob threat and being shut down by the health department.

snooggums wrote:
Yes, a voluntary shutdown because of threat of financial action covers people with free websites and people who's websites are shut down by their hosts because they think it would cost too much to prove they are right. Being shut down by a court order actually means that you were wrong, or are close to wrong enough that the courts have ordered you shut down. The first involves self preservation, the other is determined by a third neutral party.

It's the difference between closing shop because of a mob threat and being shut down by the health department.

LOL. But your shop is still closed. You are a hoot! No innocent folks in jail either....and OJ was innocent! LOL. Please keep posting. This is frickin hilarious.

ender502