Making molds from existing mini\'s?

[tsnake]

Originally posted by spaceelvesrock
suppose i wanted to make a feature film and really liked the shooting spree scene in the matrix, do you think warner brothers would just let me take that and put it in my movie without any legal fuss about copyright ownership even though i only wanted to use a piece of their intellectual property? bitz work the same way, i should think

A feature film for home viewing? Or one to dislpay in public for a fee?
Hack, sampling laws in music have some to allow certain amount of pieces to be used legally. Something about recognizable samples.
BUT, if you\'re a FILM MAKER using this method, you should probably find another career.
Along the same lines... if you actually sculpt your own professional/commercial minis, I doubt you\'d actually want to use other\'s work, if you were any good.
This seems to be talking about people who want to do this purely for amature and (mostly) private purposes.
Again... telling an open forum like this that your posted mini is a re-cast is probably just asking for trouble.
Chris

 

[Glenn Harris]

I\'ve been in the miniatures industry for several years now and I can give a be all end all answer. The act of remolding and reproducing someone else\'s miniatures is ILLEGAL. It does not matter what you do with the copies, it does not matter whether the model is still in production, it doesn\'t matter who the original maker is. True, you may not get caught but if you do you are in a world of trouble.
Sorry to be so heavy but this has come up many times and many people misunderstand how the law works here.
Glenn Harris

 

[Xarthos]

Legality

Well, I think the be all end all answer would come from the mouth of a judge, if a case ever went to court. Not from someone in the industry. Things that have never been tried need a precedent set by the first prosecution of the crime. Copyright infringement has become such a grey area with the proliferation of the internet and online auctioning. I would imagine that if you were selling copies you could be sued for alot of money, and lose if the company could prove damages. As far as being in alot of trouble no matter what, copyright infringement is not a serious crime, and takes ALOT of proving on the damaged parties part. Even if it is proven the company has to prove damages to get anything more than a \"cease and desist\" order against a defendant. so I really don\'t see where \"alot of trouble\" is coming from. People get caught and sued for copyright infringement all the time, and it really has to be on a grand scale to get into the \"alot of trouble\" area. If you have some actual facts, I would love to hear them though (not being snide, I really would).

 

[tsnake]

Originally posted by Glenn Harris
True, you may not get caught but if you do you are in a world of trouble.

Please, feel free to explain what \"world of trouble\" means. If a person is not causing provable damages to the copyright owner, the worst would be a ceace and desist. Most \"offenders\" would likely stop whatever it is after that.
Using scary terms like that in order to frighten people isn\'t going to help.

As has been stated, violating copyright laws for personal use versus ANY gain is likely to rarely ever cause damages, to anyone.

Chris

 

[Fahdpar23]

mini cloning

Aside from telling people that you are making copies of a miniature, how would anybody determine the authenticity? Say you make an exact, or near exact, duplicate or duplicates of, say, Sgt. Centurius, would anybody know the difference? Unless it was done in resin or plastic, wouldn\'t it be dificult to prove it wasn\'t an original?

 

[Lai]

the point is not if someone could or could not prove the authenticity of a cloned mini
you can\'t clone a mini it\'s illegal.and the law often dosn\'t follow the common sense
but it\'s law

 

[Saitoh_Hajime]

Yeah, but if you don\'t go telling everyone that they are copies, then the big companies won\'t find out. I don\'t think anyone here would go copying a whole army - the issue *I think* was about copying an OOP miniature that no one makes, otherwise they would just go buy them.

 

[Xarthos]

Xarthos

Its obviously illegal to sell copies. But I think there are alot of people just assuming that it is illegal to make copies for any purpose whatsoever. I\'m not saying its not illegal, but I don\'t think any of you know for sure one way or the other. My view is the industry and people opposed will contend its illegal and claim copyright infringement. People who want to copy will claim fair use. I don\'t think either is really right until a case goes to court and a judge decides one way or the other. I think it would turn out just like every other thing thats copyable, the industry says no, the people say yes, the courts decide yes to an extent. Not that we will ever see this in court, unless someone started mass copying and then selling. Even then it wouldn\'t apply to personal use copiers. If anyone disagrees, feel free to post the section of copyright law that applies to this subject. That doesn\'t include a EULA (if GW has one), since I beleive they are not binding until they are tried in court and a judge says they are valid.

 

[number9]

law (long)

portions of US copyright law as appropriate to the discussion of duplicating copyrighted miniatures. Some items are taken out of context for brevity but the intention of the law has been kept as intact as possible in summary. Anyone interested in more info can simply do a google search for \"US copyright law\" and read the whole thing.

Sec. 102. - Subject matter of copyright: In general

(a)

Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

(5)

pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;

Sec. 106. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1)

to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

Sec. 113. - Scope of exclusive rights in pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works

(a)

Subject to the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the exclusive right to reproduce a copyrighted pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work in copies under section 106 includes the right to reproduce the work in or on any kind of article, whether useful or otherwise.

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -

(1)

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2)

the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3)

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4)

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

------

There you go. Thats the law largely as it pertains to duplicating figures. The finer points are for courts to weed out but I feel the issue of duplication for \"personal use\" does not necessarily fall under \"fair use\". The extent to which you breach copyright is the measure of your punishment by the judicial system most likely. Copy 1 figure once and get caught... probably nothing... copy 10 figures 10 times... you could be in fair trouble depending on how valuable the figure is (remember some of these OOP models are considered \"collectible\" and have a high market value based on their rarity) and what became of the copies. I doubt anyone is going to jail that is making one-offs in their basement but that doesn\'t make the act any less illegal and dishonest.

Does this end discussion now, or is there more to debate?

 

[Sturmhalo]

It doesn\'t really matter what we think on this subject. It\'s more a matter of what the companies think and how the law is written on such matters.

It appears that copyright of a model remains with the company until such a day as it is sold onto another party. The argument of copying OOP models is probably more of a moral one from our point of view. Unless of course it is done for profit, in which case I think we would have quite different thoughts on the matter.

However, just because we are of the opinion that it\'s OK to copy models for personal use doesn\'t mean that a company will take it as light heartedly. If a company wanted to be a real bastard and make an example of an individual, then I think someone could get their fingers burned! It\'s risk anyone takes if they re-cast a model.

Either don\'t do it or don\'t let on you\'ve done it! Simple as that.

 

[Infidel Castro]

Do you really think they haven\'t got masters?

The whole problem revolves around what they have and have not got in the cupboard at, say, GW (to take up the subject). The fact is, copyrights are copyrights. What you do in your bedroom/garage is nobodies business; no-one will know.

Now, I don\'t believe for a second that GW have lost all of their masters from what are now regarded as OOP minis. It would be really interesting to know exactly what they have tucked away. The truth is, they are the biggest gaming firm inthe world (except Ral Partha possibly?). As a massive firm with a massive following, if they redo their lines every three years and PHASE OUT their older lines so everyone has to buy new, they will make a lot more money to put into their already swollen coffers. But the question is still the same: Do they have the masters? Generally a lot of masters are made so that they can be catalogued. If they exist, why not supply them? The point I am trying to make is this: Foundry have started re-issuing all their so-called OOP minis as they still had the master copies of the moulds (molds ). Surely if Foundry are in this position GW must also be in the same situation too? They are, after all, thick as thieves, old bedmates, best buddies and chums, GW having supplied them enough owners, painters and whatever else in the past.

Surely it\'s time for GW to start re-issuing instead of trying to bleed us dry? Fair play, Dark Age is as expensive if not more so, but GW have a longer history and we all know they have a huge back-catalogue. For God\'s sake, they released LOTR years and years ago, and the stuff was actually BETTER than it is now! I\'d love to have some of those older pieces.

Anyway, going off subject a bit. I heard the Centrifuge casters mentioned earlier. I\'ve used them in my current job and they are well worth the investment. I recall the company receiving master moulds and a few casts from the mould-maker after the greens are finished. These are sent back, we make more casts and keep them for a rainy day (i.e., should the production moulds wear out). Some are sent to the mould-maker and he makes the production moulds from these casts (I think). Therefore, making moulds from extant pieces would be, so to speak, a piece of piss.

Anyhows, copyrights are copyrights. The one thing no-one has mentioned is exactly what is written on a blister pack. What does it say on that pack you picked up the other day? I don\'t have one handy, so it would be nice to know if there is anything quoted on there.

I must add that we should start sculpting as well! Why not, eh? I know we can\'t scuplt copies (or can we?), but at least for getting PARTS of minis, we should be able to sculpt. I know that it takes practice, but wouldn\'t it be great if we could sculpt all major conversions instead of having to worry about copying/moulding/ripping off GW and all her cousins in business? I\'m all for learning, I must admit.

As a final thought, I\'ve really enjoyed seeing everybody\'s responses to this subject. It just goes to show we\'re all beautiful individuals with multifarious opinions. White, black, yellow, brown, all of us hand-in-hand debating these huge issues. Great. God bless.

Phil

 

[Sand Rat]

My 2 cents worth

Ok, just to weigh in on this. A couple of people have mentioned back stock and masters and other copies that the manufacturers must have (and probably do). There has also been a lot of discussion about the legality of copying things espcially oop items. Now, I am no lawyer, and this is free advice, so take it for what it is worth. Everyone seems to be taking the stance that because the manufacturer put out the item, they own the copyright forever, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. With most other intelectual property (and minis are intelectual property) the publisher/manufacturer only holds the rights to the property for a period of time specified in the contract they sign with the individual who came up with the item. That right there might be one of the reasons for the multiple changes in the mini lines - they cant get the copyright back from the original sculpter, and so have to make changes. Anyway, food for thought.

 

[Xarthos]

Thanks for the info Number 9. This info can be interpreted many different ways though, reinforcing my assertion that this matter would have to be given a precedent by a judge before anyone would know for sure. For one, this all seems to be dealing with public use of someone elses copyright. Another, you said they would fine you depending on how valuable the mini was. I read they would fine you depending on the damage you caused to the copyright holders market by reproducing said copyrighted material. Since no damage would occur if you used it for private use, that would be nothing. It also says \"depending on the nature of item\" which could leave minis out of this particular section entirely. This section of copyright law seems to be geared for individual works of art more than for massed produced retail items.

 

[Saitoh_Hajime]

Besides.. like any of us miniature painters actually have the patience to make molds and copy figures :bouncy:

 

[Sturmhalo]

GW redesign their product lines every few years to make money Steecult! They still own the copyright to all those older models!!!

As for long OOP masters floating around. I guess companys like GW do have most of their back catalogue masters hidden somewhere. Perhaps very early models may have been lost and the moulds long worn out, but you never know! A little while back they had a big sale on all their classic 80\'s ogres on their on-line store. If you can call £8 per figure a sale Apparently the 80 or so casts of each figure they had was going to be the last ever production run and the moulds were going to be decomissioned.

I wonder if they\'re still available though? Surely GW wouldn\'t scam us like that??? lol

The cost of GW archive models increased as well recently, more in line with the cost of their current batch of models. Prices starting at £3.00 per figure now! I suppose the argument would be that because the archive stuff doesn\'t sell so well they\'ve had to increase the cost to make it more viable!? WOW, I could be a GW spokesman with that kinda line lol

One last point to upset everyone. There\'s a rumour that GW are going to hike up their prices again!!! Check out their message boards.

 

[Chern Ann]

Originally posted by steelcult
Ok, just to weigh in on this. A couple of people have mentioned back stock and masters and other copies that the manufacturers must have (and probably do). There has also been a lot of discussion about the legality of copying things espcially oop items. Now, I am no lawyer, and this is free advice, so take it for what it is worth. Everyone seems to be taking the stance that because the manufacturer put out the item, they own the copyright forever, and there is nothing anyone can do about it. With most other intelectual property (and minis are intelectual property) the publisher/manufacturer only holds the rights to the property for a period of time specified in the contract they sign with the individual who came up with the item. That right there might be one of the reasons for the multiple changes in the mini lines - they cant get the copyright back from the original sculpter, and so have to make changes. Anyway, food for thought.

You are much mistaken Steelcult. It is standard operating procedure that any work produced while employed is automatically assigned to the company in perpetuity (standard in almost all employment contracts, whether or not it\'s GW). The only possible kink is where works are commissioned from freelancers, and even then the copyright will be explicitly assigned by contract. GW wouldn\'t make a stupid mistake of accepting work without full assignment, it\'s too much legal hassle later and they do have a dedicated legal department.

 

[ramonlaan]

masters...

GW still has the masters. Maybe not of all back issues, but anyone knowing the GW studio knows of \'the Vault\'... The place all the masters are well stashed away.

The thing with back ordering and why it is so difficult and expensive is quite easy. Do you know how many masters there are? Have you any idea how many figures have been put out the last 20+ years? Go to stuff of legends for an idea.... These models are all stored in \'the vault\' as masters and indeed they threw away lots of molds. Purely for the sake of room. So, anyone ordering 1 back copy of an OOP figure starts this: 1) caster searching for master. Caster finds master (takes a few hours probably) 2) caster makes mould in the circular rubber disks. Here\'s a problem. These disks need to have 10 (more or less) minis on them to be be \'economic\'). So wait for nine others? Nope, so 1 mould for one mini! Then this master mould will probably used for production... one time? Very expensive because the caster has been busy for a day and spend a whole disk for 1 model... No way! Because of the shortage of space the mold will be thrown out again. This would be I guess the reason they don\'t do this anymore.
They might once in a while put out old stuff again, but in a much larger quantity so it will be viable. To put it otherwise: the process of casting is not the problem, it is the time consuming process of mouldmaking. if from master to 1 mini would take 1 day, then for example would the same process to 100 minis take 1 day and half an hour.

I think I don\'t blame GW for not putting out oop stuff (though I do regret it cuz I would love to have many old minis myself)

Ramon (no affiliations with GW) Laan

 

[Sand Rat]

Ok I might be wrong. I was speaking from experience in the publishing and software industries where copyright reverts after an agreed upon period of time (usually 10 years). Then the publisher can renegotiate with the author of the work for further rights to the work. Like I said, I aint a lawyer.

 

[cento]

Speaking of pirate copies on eBay...

Speaking of pirated copies on eBay, does anyone know if the seller mac-ace is legit?

He always has multiple pages of rare and out of print GW figures for sale, and he sells tons of copies of the same rare figures over time. Even more odd, all of his figures are out of the package and primed in white primer (which strikes me as suspicious - why would he bother to spend time priming all of these figures when realistically it reduces their value to at least some degree). And he offers to track down pretty much any figure for people. Someone I know once emailed him an inquiry about 20 of the old-style GW Chaos Marine backpacks that were cast in metal - these were normally cast in plastic and the metal ones are pretty damn uncommon - and he got an immediate positive response at a pretty cheap price. You can see his current auctions at:

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.d...ed=0&sort=3&since=-1&include=0&page=1&rows=25

I have no proof that he is not legit, but there are too many questions surrounding his wares for me. I was just curious if anyone knew more about this seller and could confirm or deny my suspicions...

 

[Saitoh_Hajime]

Well I just asked him if he can get me the OOP SoB personalities and some old style high elf maiden guard. If I get them I\'ll post if they are kosher (i.e. resin or such).