"A question" Topic

I recently found the following post on TMP

TMP link

Now this isn't recasting but what is the difference between recasting someones miniatures and making a paper knock off? Is there any?

I would think, no, even though it is a different medium (as opposed to lead vs resin).

A copy would still be a copy no matter what medium it is in.

Just my two cents.

I'd say no. It may be a derivitive (sp) work, as in inspired by, but not a "copy"

@Saber6 are you actually saying that if a company makes a miniature in plastic I can then make a virtually exact duplicate of that in a different medium like metal or wood??? I really hope you are joking. Seems to me both are three dimensional representations of the same thing.

And yes that looks exactly like an Imperial Naval Cruiser as produced by Games Workshop.

And yes that looks exactly like an Imperial Naval Cruiser as produced by Games Workshop.

So. GW can go after them, then. They are good at that kind of thing, and the other answers to your question will be answered soon.

Copyright covers a design or work.
Any reproduction of the design or work in any medium is an infringement of copyright.

If it were not the case then you could use the name microsoft for your own company aslong as you invented your own font for it, or you could make ipods out of a different type of plastic and call it your own, in the same way you can not use someone else music just because you play it on a different instrument.

Hopefully Games Workshops own copyright blurb makes it obvious what you can not do:

link

What exactly are you saying is being copied here? i'm going to guess you think the imperial cruiser from link is too close to the ones shown here link

While the two designs have some similarities, they are also very different. The differences have nothing to do with the medium used. If both were made of metal, plastic, wood, paper or anything else the differences would still be there. The designs are just different in many details, shapes and proportions. They are Similar, but significantly different.

Making copies of another person's work in another medium is illegal. I have seen paper models that could be said to violate copyrights of works in other media. This example is not one of them.

I certainly disagree those are recognisably the same thing and now doubt that is a violation of copyright. What significant difference are you talking about? Same shape, same prow, same weappons systems, and the same engines sounds like the same thing to me.

So where EXCATLY was GW's artwork/model/design copied? This is like saying that Ford should sue everyone that builds automobiles out of steel, have 4 doors and an engine mounted in front.

Sometimes form and function lead to similar look and feel. As I said, the works look derived, NOT copies.

Brett-
I'll just point out a few of the more obvious differences I see in the things you say are the same.

Shape- The body of the metal ship looks to be generally wedge shaped, consistently increasing in size from the front to the back. The paper ship increases in size to a point in the middle and then reduces in size toward the back, then increases again at the end, sort of like a coke bottle on its side.

prow- This is proportionally smaller on the metal ship. The prow has some sort of protrusion on the metal ship which is not on the paper ship. The bottom of the prow is even with the bottom of the next section on the metal ship, on the paper ship it is much lower. The lines on the two prows are different.

weapons- The weapons on the paper ship are cones. The weapons on the metal ship look to be boxes with cylindrical and bulbous protrusions. from what I can see the number and size of weapons are different. I don't see anything about the weapons that are the same. Specifically, what is the same to you?

engines- The paper ship has a hexagonal piece for engines. It rises above the section immediately ahead of it. Does the metal ship have engines? Maybe they are those cylindrical pieces at the bottom back of the ship. They are not their own section of the ship, do not raise above the deck, do have a framework which is not on the paper ship, and are proportionally much smaller. Do you really see anything that is specifically the same about the two engines?

I have to say it's close, but I'm still gonna go with "probably not."

My reasoning: While clearly the paper model is inspired by the original, it in no way comes close to recreating the original in any way. The artwork is basic and resembles the original only in color scheme. The shapes are also far more basic (understandably), and significantly different in a number of places. And lastly, no one would mistake the paper model for the original, or even mistake it as a professional "variation" of the original, or mistake it for anything professionally produced at all; it is clearly just fun hobby work. Nor, for that matter, is anyone likely to pay money for it, nor will it impact in any way sales of the original manufactured models, certainly not negatively. (No one who has the for the GW creations is going to use the paper models. Someone who can only afford the free paper models isn't being deterred from purchasing the GW creations, as they weren't going to do so in the first place. On the other hand, someone who's interested in the game but doesn't want to make a big investment, might start with the paper models, decide they like the play or look of BFG, and purchase the real thing.)

So I see this one as a wash, and I think GW would too.

Now, if someone had taken photos of a real Imperial Cruiser from six angles and pasted these onto the paper model shapes, then GW might have a complaint worthy of pursuing.

This model, however, isn't it.

@parzival

1. The artwork resembles the original in shape not just color. It actually looks very much like the original.

2. Mistaking it for a professional copy has nothing to do with copyright violation.

3. Someone paying money for it also has nothing to do with it being a copyright violation either.

Tim,
It looks like you may be looking at the wrong Games Workshop ship. Please look at the Imperial Cruiser not the Grand Cruiser.

Shape – The Imperial Cruiser is the same shape as the paper model and in no way looks like wedge. If you need a better picture of the cruiser to really see its shape I can host one for you so you can check it out.

Prow – The Imperial Cruiser and the paper model have the same shape prow and the same detail lines on them. Only difference is that the paper model has four torpedo tubes instead of three. Both have protrusion (ie ram out the front).

Engines – the plastic model does have engines. They actually are their own part of the ship. The plastic ships engines are also the exact same shape and layout as the paper one (and I mean exactly).

Weapons – each has the option for launch bays, weapons batteries, or lances. Both can have two weapons per side.
Weapons batteries – both are shaped the same and have
four guns per battery.
Lances – both are shaped the same and have two lances per
battery
Launch Bays – shaped the same and both have the same
number of bays per

"Wings" – both ships have the same shape wings in the same position of the model.

So could you tell me again what you see as so different. The only significant difference in these models is the shape of the bridge.

You'll have to point out exactly what you think is being copied. I can't find anything that fits your description.

@parzival

1. The artwork resembles the original in shape not just color. It actually looks very much like the original.

2. Mistaking it for a professional copy has nothing to do with copyright violation.

3. Someone paying money for it also has nothing to do with it being a copyright violation either.

brettz124, if you will do a search on this site you will discover I am one of the firmest voices on the issue of copyright and IP infringement. As for your points:

1. Are you kidding? The PDF art is a bunch of multi-colored lines done on a cheap bit-map or vector drawing program. It resembles the original "Victorian" girder work of the original model about as much as a kindergartener's scribble resembles an actual cat. *That* much of it, at least, is not a copyright violation. It's not a copy of anything at all. (I'm referring, of course, to the decorations, not the shape of the model.)

2. Didn't say it didn't.

3. Didn't say it didn't.

What I said was that pursuing this as actionable would be silly on the part of GW and a waste of money, as it's causing them no harm whatsoever, which indeed would be one of the considerations of a court in a copyright dispute.

There are plenty of copyright and IP violations in this hobby that I do object to. This one, however, doesn't warrant notice.