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.

Well I have been vaguely thinking about making a Tau army. But I want my Crisis suits to look like the Armored Valkyrie's from the latest Macross series. I can't find a picture of the specific design, not relevant anyway.

Comparing the Tau suit and the Macross design I think with some extensive Modification the Tau suit could be used as a base for the new design. By base I just mean to get the anatomical proportions right. There will not be a bit of visible plastic when it is finished. My question therefore, can I make my own resin molds of the finished product just for personal use?

heh should take copyright law next year >.>

edit: need a grammar check lol

Good god no.

If you use the model as a base, then you have to buy the Battlesuit and greenstuff up from there.

Completely and utterly in breach of copyright I'm afraid. Why not just make a series of linked, geometric shapes to give the same rough outline? That would be legal, as it be an armature.

As I understand your plan, it is to use the basic parts of the Tau suit as an armature and cover it with your own designs.

In my opinion not being a lawyer though having studied IP law, this is possibly all right -- it's certainly a borderline case -- but you would be better advised to take measurements of the Tau model, make your own armature and build your design on that.

I believe the basic proportions of the Tau model are sufficiently generic that they would not be copyrighted. It is basically a human figure.

If you find some of the old 1/200 scale macross models, you can save yourself a lot of extra work, they are about the right size by themselves.

As for cool looking suit conversions, head over to advanced tau tactica and look at some of the conversions there using stock GW parts. Very nice.

As long as none of the plastic is showing through, you're in the clear. However, you're going to end up with a seriously fat Valk that way. Like something out of Wagner!

And as long as you're making this stuff for your own use, and never plan to give/sell/share/etc the stuff, you're also likely in the clear as you're just making an assembly line conversion- the intended and also encouraged use for GW models.

Its not a violation of copyright unless you plan to redistribute the models. Otherwise it's just private use.

Yeah don't let the copyright nervous nellies here get to you. If you own a model you can do ANYTHING you want to/with it. You just can't sell it as your work. GO for it, sounds like a good project.

biztheclown wrote:Yeah don't let the copyright nervous nellies here get to you. If you own a model you can do ANYTHING you want to/with it. You just can't sell it as your work. GO for it, sounds like a good project.

You can't do anything you want to it. You can't legally make copies of it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biztheclown wrote:Yeah don't let the copyright nervous nellies here get to you. If you own a model you can do ANYTHING you want to/with it. You just can't sell it as your work. GO for it, sounds like a good project.

You can't do anything you want to it. You can't legally make copies of it.

Why not? International copyright law involves the sale and distribution of copyrighted materials, not their manufacture or alteration for personal use. Especially when its the alteration of a purchased good.

Copyright law deals with the copying of materials, including manufacture for personal use. Sale is not necessary to create an infringement.

This issue was been widely discussed here before. There are a couple of IP lawyers on this forum who disagree with you.

I am not going to bother typing out all the arguments again. You can look them up.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biztheclown wrote:Yeah don't let the copyright nervous nellies here get to you. If you own a model you can do ANYTHING you want to/with it. You just can't sell it as your work. GO for it, sounds like a good project.

You can't do anything you want to it. You can't legally make copies of it.

Why not? International copyright law involves the sale and distribution of copyrighted materials, not their manufacture or alteration for personal use. Especially when its the alteration of a purchased good.

*sigh*

First, there is no such animal as "international copyright law." Each country has it's own laws. Some countries are party to various treaties which cover copyright, but those treaties are implemented in the form of laws in the member countries.

Second, you're completely wrong about being free to make copies, just because you aren't selling it.

garinator wrote:Well I have been vaguely thinking about making a Tau army. But I want my Crisis suits to look like the Armored Valkyrie's from the latest Macross series. I can't find a picture of the specific design, not relevant anyway.

Comparing the Tau suit and the Macross design I think with some extensive Modification the Tau suit could be used as a base for the new design. By base I just mean to get the anatomical proportions right. There will not be a bit of visible plastic when it is finished. My question therefore, can I make my own resin molds of the finished product just for personal use?

heh should take copyright law next year >.>

edit: need a grammar check lol

I'm not going to give you legal advice. However, from a purely hypothetical standpoint, I can see two ways of interpreting your question:

A) You are adding greenstuff details to the Battlesuit model, resulting in a finished model that combines elements of the GW model and your own sculpting, and then you cast it. I see problems with this (see the discussion of derivative works we had in the last giant recasting thread, called "Limited Recasting").

B) You are using the GW model as a skeleton (or armature), as suggested by others. By the time you're done with the green stuff, no GW-sculted parts are visible, and you've dramatically altered the appearance of the suit in the process. Then you recast the model. This is probably okay - you're probably entitled to "destroy" the battlesuit model through additional sculpting, and what you end up with isn't a derivative work, as it shares essentially no common elements with the original. That said, it'd be cheaper just to buy/make an armature of your own.

Janthkin wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biztheclown wrote:Yeah don't let the copyright nervous nellies here get to you. If you own a model you can do ANYTHING you want to/with it. You just can't sell it as your work. GO for it, sounds like a good project.

You can't do anything you want to it. You can't legally make copies of it.

Why not? International copyright law involves the sale and distribution of copyrighted materials, not their manufacture or alteration for personal use. Especially when its the alteration of a purchased good.

*sigh*

First, there is no such animal as "international copyright law." Each country has it's own laws. Some countries are party to various treaties which cover copyright, but those treaties are implemented in the form of laws in the member countries.
cast

Second, you're completely wrong about being free to make copies, just because you aren't selling it.

Maybe I'm mixing it all up with international digital copyright law. Has GW ever actually brought someone to court over copyright after they cast models for personal use?

ShumaGorath wrote:
Maybe I'm mixing it all up with international digital copyright law. Has GW ever actually brought someone to court over copyright after they cast models for personal use?

That dog won't hunt, either. There are very few "international laws;" only admiralty law and war crimes come to mind, but it's not my area of practice.

As regards your second sentence, please, PLEASE don't fall into the trap of "well, I won't actually get into trouble, so it doesn't matter if it's legal or not." First, that's horrible advice to give anyone. Second, it shows a level of disdain for the law that you may not want permanently archived on the internet. Third, we don't need Dakka populated with threads telling people it's okay to recast GW's models, both for the reputation of the board and for our relationship with GW.

(We have covered all of this ground very recently; feel free to read the "Limited Recasting" thread linked above.)

That dog won't hunt, either. There are very few "international laws;" only admiralty law and war crimes come to mind, but it's not my area of practice.

Technological Protection and Copyright Management Systems
Each of the WIPO treaties contains virtually identical language obligating
member states to prevent circumvention of technological measures used to protect
copyrighted works, and to prevent tampering with the integrity of copyright
management information. These obligations serve as technological adjuncts to the
exclusive rights granted by copyright law. They provide legal protection that the
international copyright community deemed critical to the safe and efficient exploitation
of works on digital networks.

Isn't the digital millennium copyright act semi international? I mean, no law covers the world, but it spans quite a few countries doesn't it?

As regards your second sentence, please, PLEASE don't fall into the trap of "well, I won't actually get into trouble, so it doesn't matter if it's legal or not."

He isn't even talking about recasting the models, so thanks for jumping down my throat on that one. As for giving advice he never asked for advice. Just if it's illegal. Which apparently it is, since the topic of digital copyright law is irrelevant. All I would be able to do is state my opinion, that being one of little respect when it comes to traditional copyright law in the area of artistic endeavor (which i definitely would consider this to be). Copyright laws are antiquated and increasingly irrelevant tools used to maintain monopolies and monopsonies far more often then they are used to protect actual businesses.

Second, it shows a level of disdain for the law that you may not want permanently archived on the internet.

If a court is ever pulling down the history of my opinions concerning copyright law they would probably run into a textwall of hate so massive it would threaten to blot out the sun. So really, my opinions "On the internet" are pretty well stated in other forms and places.

Third, we don't need Dakka populated with threads telling people it's okay to recast GW's models, both for the reputation of the board and for our relationship with GW.

Yeah, because dakka is so friendly with GW. The amount of vitriol this forum possesses in its heart when it comes to GW could kill a man.

But that's personal. He's talking law stuff.

I have got fed up with all these copyright threads, where people keep saying it's OK to copy stuff if you do it at home, so I have made an Article about copyright.

Please note that I am not a lawyer. Edits and comments by lawyers will be welcome.

ShumaGorath wrote:

That dog won't hunt, either. There are very few "international laws;" only admiralty law and war crimes come to mind, but it's not my area of practice.

Technological Protection and Copyright Management Systems
Each of the WIPO treaties contains virtually identical language obligating
member states to prevent circumvention of technological measures used to protect
copyrighted works, and to prevent tampering with the integrity of copyright
management information. These obligations serve as technological adjuncts to the
exclusive rights granted by copyright law. They provide legal protection that the
international copyright community deemed critical to the safe and efficient exploitation
of works on digital networks.

Isn't the digital millennium copyright act semi international? I mean, no law covers the world, but it spans quite a few countries doesn't it?

No. The DMCA only exists in the US, and (thankfully) very few other countries have adopted anything similar. While the underlying WIPO treaty includes a provision on anti-cirumvention, much of the additional sillyness was introduced at a national level.

(Not all countries are WIPO members, or signatories to all of the WIPO treaties.)

ShumaGorath wrote:

As regards your second sentence, please, PLEASE don't fall into the trap of "well, I won't actually get into trouble, so it doesn't matter if it's legal or not."

He isn't even talking about recasting the models, so thanks for jumping down my throat on that one. As for giving advice he never asked for advice. Just if it's illegal. Which apparently it is, since the topic of digital copyright law is irrelevant. All I would be able to do is state my opinion, that being one of little respect when it comes to traditional copyright law in the area of artistic endeavor (which i definitely would consider this to be). Copyright laws are antiquated and increasingly irrelevant tools used to maintain monopolies and monopsonies far more often then they are used to protect actual businesses.

gainator wrote:Comparing the Tau suit and the Macross design I think with some extensive Modification the Tau suit could be used as a base for the new design. By base I just mean to get the anatomical proportions right. There will not be a bit of visible plastic when it is finished. My question therefore, can I make my own resin molds of the finished product just for personal use?

Funny - looks exactly like he's asking about recasting something, and is wondering what he can recast.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Second, it shows a level of disdain for the law that you may not want permanently archived on the internet.

If a court is ever pulling down the history of my opinions concerning copyright law they would probably run into a textwall of hate so massive it would threaten to blot out the sun. So really, my opinions "On the internet" are pretty well stated in other forms and places.

I wasn't concerned about courts, and more about, say, potential employers. But to each their own - you are likely not concerned with the same issues I am.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Third, we don't need Dakka populated with threads telling people it's okay to recast GW's models, both for the reputation of the board and for our relationship with GW.

Yeah, because dakka is so friendly with GW. The amount of vitriol this forum possesses in its heart when it comes to GW could kill a man.

There is a non-trivial distinction between "many posters on Dakka have some negative opinions about some of GW's business practices" and "Dakka allows threads encouraging people to violate GW's IP rights."

Funny - looks exactly like he's asking about recasting something, and is wondering what he can recast.

No, it looks like he is asking about casting resin figures, and is wondering where his legal bounds are. It's not really a recast when the original is used as an armature to create a mold which shall produce models that do not resemble the armature used in any fashion.

I wasn't concerned about courts, and more about, say, potential employers. But to each their own - you are likely not concerned with the same issues I am.

The graphic and systems design fields don't really stress impartiality.

There is a non-trivial distinction between "many posters on Dakka have some negative opinions about some of GW's business practices" and "Dakka allows threads encouraging people to violate GW's IP rights."

Yes, because freedoms of speech don't translate into the internet. We all know how often GW shuts down forums that dabble in discussion of casting specifics.

Don't ask,Don't tell.
That's my stance on casting your own models.

ShumaGorath wrote:

No, it looks like he is asking about casting resin figures, and is wondering where his legal bounds are. It's not really a recast when the original is used as an armature to create a mold which shall produce models that do not resemble the armature used in any fashion.

I don't know if you're aware, but Janthkin is an IP lawyer for a living, so his opinion, even given casually and not as legal advice, is probably the most learned here. The fundamental question, IMO, would be "could the OP create the work without using a GW suit as a base?" If he could, then why doesn't he? If he can't, then I think the nature of the copy becomes more interesting. I'm sure it would be an interesting case to litigate, but

There is a non-trivial distinction between "many posters on Dakka have some negative opinions about some of GW's business practices" and "Dakka allows threads encouraging people to violate GW's IP rights."

Yes, because freedoms of speech don't translate into the internet. We all know how often GW shuts down forums that dabble in discussion of casting specifics.

I don't know if you're simply being ornery, but GW did actually send a couple of forums cease and desist letters over the copyrighted materials they were discussing (points costs and the like). The question isn't "would Yak win in the lawsuit against GW for knowingly and willfully conspiring to commit copyright infringment" (he almost certainly would), however he would spend thousands of dollars to win. GW's online presence has softened dramatically in the last few years, but they used some heavy bats in the past to protect their IP.

Also, while the first amendment applies to online communications, keep in mind that that only means the Feds can't arrest you for what you say. What you say on Dakka (private property) about GW's IP (also private property) can be regulated freely by Dakka and litigated by GW.

Also, call me a goody two shoes, but copyright laws, are well, the law. They exist to protect valuable yet intangible property, and while they most visibly protect major corporations, they also protect a lot of other folks too, and they're still the law of the land, and respect for the law is a good thing.

garinator wrote:Well I have been vaguely thinking about making a Tau army. But I want my Crisis suits to look like the Armored Valkyrie's from the latest Macross series.

I think with some extensive Modification the Tau suit could be used as a base for the new design. By base I just mean to get the anatomical proportions right. There will not be a bit of visible plastic when it is finished.

My question therefore, can I make my own resin molds of the finished product just for personal use?

I understand things properly, there are 2 issues.

1. You want to use GW Tau models as an armature, keeping only the basic shape / proportions. This presents very little issue with respect to casting, as you're sculpting over all of the GW-specific imagery and the resulting model won't look anything like a GW Tau (or other GW) model. You would probably do best to convert this to a wire armature that uses no GW elements, but if your conversion is extensive enough, then nobody would be the wiser. That is, if you embedded a GW Skeleton inside a custom-sculpted Germanic Knight Templar, then nobody would know it unless they X-rayed the final model.

2. You want to sculpt and mass-produce models that look like Macross Armored Valkyries. This is much more of a problem, as you're deliberately duplicating copyrighted designs without any license.

INL, but I'd suggest you just sculpt your own, "counts as" models that don't pay homage to anything else.

nope, still buying a GW model to use.

but, what i would do is:

since you say none of the model will be showing who cares?
it cant be seen, so no one is hurt.

It's no anywhere near copyright infringement unless you plan to cultivate a profit from the sale of your models. You could sit in your basement all day and night forever, drowning in piles and piles of your figures and no one will sue you.

I don't know if you're simply being ornery, but GW did actually send a couple of forums cease and desist letters over the copyrighted materials they were discussing (points costs and the like).

I am, and thats good to know. I knew they were heavy handed back in the day, but I wasn't aware that they were so much so that they would interfere with private online spaces that weren't reselling their products.

Also, call me a goody two shoes, but copyright laws, are well, the law. They exist to protect valuable yet intangible property, and while they most visibly protect major corporations, they also protect a lot of other folks too, and they're still the law of the land, and respect for the law is a good thing.

Respect for all laws isn't respect, it's obedience. There is a difference between having a healthy respect for the laws of a modern society and those of modern business. One exists to protect the people, the other exists to protect the bottom line. Copyright laws are the most visible example of what I'm speaking of. Its a broken system continually patched up and increasingly irrelevant. It has a place, but not in its current form.

build it, mold it, paint it.

who's going to stop you?

For what it's worth, I've was sent (a long time ago) a letter by the publishers of the For Dummies series, demanding that I change the name of my website, because it was called Return to Castle Wolfenstein 4 Dummies. I was making no money off the site, there was no advertising, but they asked in a formal letter from their lawyers that I change the name.

Ifurita wrote:For what it's worth, I've was sent (a long time ago) a letter by the publishers of the For Dummies series, demanding that I change the name of my website, because it was called Return to Castle Wolfenstein 4 Dummies. I was making no money off the site, there was no advertising, but they asked in a formal letter from their lawyers that I change the name.

I demend you also change the transmission fluid in my car. you can make all the demands you want its the grounds their made on that are the point.

I believe in the late 90's, GW threatened to take Enigma Miniatures to court accusing them of using GW models as armatures. (Not sure if it got to court, Enigma changed their name to Atlantis and stopped selling certain models though). GW were more litigious back then, though (see the infamous Sentinal lawsuit..)

(Enigma claimed not to have used GW figures as armatures, but their figures were pretty close. I was doing some freelance rules work for Enigma at the time, which is to say the sort of work where you don't get paid at the end, so I'm not so sure I believe them..).


Therefore, I would say it's a bad ides to use he battlesuit as an armature for something you intend to cast. If your final model is truly not derivative, you wouldn't need the armature in the first place, you could create your own. "No Plastic Showing" is no defense, I could spraypaint a space marine and there'd be no plastic showing, that doesn't mean I could take a mold from it afterwards.