"Is copying ok withut distribution?" Topic

This discussion started over on the man boards, but really is moving into a question of law and copying, so I've opened it here:

If someone wants to cite a decision against someone for reproducing something and not distributing it, you're welcome to try

The US may be slightly different, but in the UK:

"Copyright infringement is centred on the concept of strict liability – that it is not necessary to consider the state of mind of the defendant when they carried out the infringing action. This means that it does not matter if the defendant was aware that the work was protected under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988. Also irrelevant is if they defendant believed that they had permission to copy the work" Source: Lawdit – UK Copyright Lawyers

So, it's the copying itself, without actual permission, that is the illegal act, not the distribution. As I said, it needs to be otherwise there is little to prevent me from buying one of each figure and simply casting myself as many as I want (even without offering them for sale).

The level of distribution will have an effect on the damages, with a possibility of a claim against the profits.

The reason for a lack of decisions against 'own use' reproduction (if there is indeed a lack of such decisions) may be more to do with the privacy of the act and the unlikelihood of official discovery. I think a lot of legal departments are switched on to illegal selling and distribution of copyright material, but how many are investigating what goes on in people's homes?

Incidentally, I agree with you on the point of law, if that wasn't clear from my previous post.

I believe under U.S. law it is illegal to copy anything in toto without express permission of the copyright owner, regardless of the intended use. You will note that many miniatures games that come with "cheat sheets" or blank unit roster sheets will have a disclaimer giving you the right to copy them for personal use. Theoretically you could be prosecuted for copying them if the disclaimer wasn't there. The likelyhood that you would be is small however. You just aren't worth going after for copying something for your own use.

Even large companies don't go after everyone that infringes their copyright. About three months ago I purchased the "complete" Young Indiana Jones TV series from a company in Canada. They had it on sale for a mere $60.00. My DVD's arrived, with covers that were exactly like the ones shown on the legitmate DVD's and I popped the first one in the player and sat back to enjoy it. For a DVD it was pretty bad looking, being a bit fuzzy. Then the USA network logo popped up in the lower corner and I realized I was watching a pirated copy made from a tape. I called the company that sold me the copy and got a service in India. When I complained they had pirated the copy they told me that all the shows they sell are copied from tapes made of the TV shows. I told them it was illegal and they refunded my money and were to send me a mailer to return the DVD's. That hasn't shown up yet. I contacted Lucasfilm's legal department and explained, by email, what had happened. I never heard back from them, and I never got the mailer to return the DVD's. They sit unopened on my computer desk. I'm not sure what to do with them, but I certainly don't intend to watch them. Having intellectual and hard properties of my own out in the world, I'm not in favor of supporting piracy of any kind. I will probably wait a few more months to see if anything shows up, then use the DVD's for terrain bases.

Let the buyer beware is the best axiom to be used here Makhil.

Back to the copyright issue, Geoff do you wish for me to post the US Code that relates to this again for the sake of the debate?

"If someone wants to cite a decision against someone for reproducing something and not distributing it, you're welcome to try"

Reproduction is one of the few things that copyright protects. So, under the limited set of facts (none) that I have here, reproduction of a copyrighted work without permission is not allowed unless it fall within one of the many exceptions (in the U.S.).

I am sooo guilty. Countless times in my life I have photocopied and kept, and even given to friends on occasion. I have also duplicated music and shared a few times. Now, where is that knotted whip so I can flog myself?

Geoff do you wish for me to post the US Code that relates to this again for the sake of the debate

Not especially, but feel free if you wish, or you think it clarifies anything

under the limited set of facts (none) that I have here

Lol. Fair point. Problem is, we're only talking theoretically anyway.

Now, where is that knotted whip so I can flog myself?

I think you're on the wrong board… ;-)

Ok, theoretical fact for NYCJadie

I buy some figures, let's say some 28mm WW2 soldiers. I make a series of conversions/modifications to them:

a. Cut off the head and replace it with a head from another figure (same manufacturer or different, probably doesn't matter, not my work). I didn't make the 'part' but did exercise some skill and care in the artistic creation

b. Cut off the head and replace it with a head I make myself from scratch

c. Cut off the head and attach it to a new body (arms, legs, torso, weapon) I have made myself

There is a differing degree of skill and work gone into producing each of the figures, yet they all rely on someone else's work I have purchased, and used, without permission.

If I use these figures for myself, they are merely conversions, derivatives, for my own pleasure and enjoyment. No sales have been lost, as I still purchased the original figure(s).

But, if I place them in a mould and cast them… where do I now stand? In the case of c, 90% of the work is mine, but I still don't have permission to use the head. Can that squeeze into fair use?

Let's not let this thread get carried off into 'how to enter into piracy of figures'. We are merely discussing the theory of how restrictive copyright is.

Geoff, that's too many questions!

(1) Conversion work. If you buy some minis, cut them up and assemble them, you have a conversion. You have every right to cut up your minis and assemble just as you have a right to put a Porsche engine in a VW Rabbit (which I have seen and man that car was fast).

(2) Copying the converted work. It is arguable that if you photographed that work (or any mini for that matter) that placing that photograph on the internet is a technical infringement. For example, I photograph my nicely painted QRF mini and place that photograph on the web. I made two copies. One was the photograph. Two was the photograph on the internet. (Three, was technically the copy on the computer hard drive – but now we'd be getting very technical – but that's copyright law for you). Arguably, those photographs are copyright infringements. Would anyone sue you over them? I don't know of that ever happening but you never know. Actually, Mattel has been known to do just that.

(3) Would casting these conversions be an infringement? I would say, most likely yes. Unless you so transformed the work that you couldn't identify the prior works, it would be an infringement whether you sold those castings or not. Would anyone bother to sue you? Maybe. I would label that a risk.

If I bought a building blank and used it to create a "green" for a new building that I was going to cast and the green looked nothing like the blank (and you could not tell in any way whether the building was made from a blank) then it is likely that you transformed the work sufficiently to be deemed non-infringing.

Actually Geoff, on second thought, the Harry Potter Encyclopedia case will be interesting (and relevant) because it's decided on how "transformative" the material is. We're still waiting on a decision to see whether Rowling can stop a website from producing a print version of an encyclopedia on everything Potter.

Yes, been following the HP thing. Interesting stuff.

Thanks for that, sorry for the involved question, but I think if you put the two together you get a reasonable basis of an answer to the question!

link

Geoff

Actually, Mattel has been known to do just that

I can't cite an actual situation, but hasn't GW used a similar premise over use of photos of its figures?

For the GW situation, I thought GW was just protecting specific images used on the GW website. There was also the issue of using GW figures to sell other things, but that is a different area of law. As for painting a GW figure, photocopying it, and posting it online, I believe those are all allowed under fair use.

I say this because of the 'nature' and 'purpose' of a GW figure. That figure is sold with the expectation that it will be painted and displayed in public. I think whether it is displayed on a gaming table in a public venue or on a webpage of 'my painted GW figures' is irrelevant.

Back onto the copying thing. It is clearly illegal in the US to copying miniatures for personal use, whether the courts pursue such cases or not. The nature of gaming miniatures alone breaks a fair use exemption. In most cases a gaming miniature become more useful with additional copies. Also, making copies of miniatures reduces the POTENTIAL market for a figure. That fact someone copies figures, though they may never be willing to buy more then one of that figure, shows there is a potential market for a that figure beyond one. It doesn't matter if they intend to sell it or not. For some reason, people seem not able to grasp that concept.

Regarding photographing minis and copyright.

Is a photo (i.e a 2D representation) of a 3D model intended as a gaming piece, not really a copy as such?

I can certainly see that photographing some minis them making counters out of them would be a breach of copyright.

But it doesn't seem that a photo of a mini (intended as a piece of artwork of its own) would be a breach of copyright. But then again common sense and the law aren't always the same thing.

Is a photo (i.e a 2D representation) of a 3D model intended as a gaming piece, not really a copy as such?

Yes, but I'd agrue that Fair Use allows one to photograph miniatures one has painted. This due to the fact that one is fullfilling one aspect of the 'nature' of minis – that they are to painted and displayed. And that one is not using the copy to replacing the second aspect of minis – that they are used as game pieces. This is only true, though, if all the facets of Fair Use are followed as well. Which leads to:

I can certainly see that photographing some minis them making counters out of them would be a breach of copyright.

I would also agree with this statement as these copies violate both the nature and potential market aspects of Fair Use.

Kind of a large dose of common sense really, isn't it. If you're not sure enough to ask the question, then the answer is probably that you shouldn't be doing it…

Yes, but I'd agrue that Fair Use allows one to photograph miniatures one has painted.

It's not even "Fair Use." It's just your right. It's not a reproduction or a derivative work. Now if you were to use that picture of someone else's product in a commercial venture, the producer of the miniature could object, but not for copyright violations but for trademark violations (the likeness of something in a commercial venture is covered by trademark law, not copyright).

As for the original post, it's my text that's in the quoted box. I guess what I was really getting at is that the law is not just as written, but as written, applied and enforced. We may be able to quote stuff that says "no, you can't do this" or "yes, you can do this" but that's largely irrelevant until the rubber hits the road and the courts or the police are involved. And then some people will be shocked when their notions about what the law is (or should that be, their notions of what they think the law should be) and how it's applied in real cases turn out to be completely different.

Also, there are differences by country. Despite various nations being part of treaties related to copyright, there still are differences in how the laws agreed to in those treaties are handled by local courts.

"Copyright infringement is centred on the concept of strict liability – that it is not necessary to consider the state of mind of the defendant when they carried out the infringing action….

So, it's the copying itself, without actual permission, that is the illegal act, not the distribution.

I don't see that in the above text. You're assuming in advance that "Copyright infringement" doesn't include distribution.

There are two types of copyright violations in most countries. Civil and criminal.

For civil cases, the courts are there to redress violations of people's rights in the form of damages, and to stop future ones in the form of injunctions. When someone seeks damages or an injunction, they have the burden of proof. And different courts (or even judges) will accept different things as proof. And without proof of damages (which requires distribution) there will be no award. And without proof of distribution or intent to distribute, there will be no injunction awarded.

An actionable act of copyright infringement will include either distribution, public showing, commercial use or the intent to do one of the above. If it doesn't include that, it won't be actionable. You're welcome to try. Pay your lawyers and they'll do whatever you ask.

When it comes to criminal copyright violation, it varies by country as well, but generally a government prosecutor or the police are not interested in wasting their time going after non-commercial piracy. It's very, very rare. I know of one case where the police encouraged a person who was just robbed to declare their collection of pirated DVDs and Playstation games at their full retail value so they could then charge the accused with a harsher crime (theft over certain thousands of dollars). They were hardly going to turn around and charge the person for having pirated DVDs.

The idea that law as written gets perfectly, justly and universally applied only exists in people's minds and in internet message board discussions.

I find it curious that no mention of the ethics of the various activities occured anywhere in this thread. I know this is the "Law" board, but laws are based on ethics. Isn't the intent of law, whether it's copyright law or motor vehicle law, what's important? Isn't it the intent of law that is argued and judged everyday in courtrooms everywhere?

Shouldn't someone ask what the intent of copyright law is?

I would have hoped that the ethics, that it is wrong to copy someone else's work without permission, were without question.

As for the original post, it's my text that's in the quoted box

My apologies Nathaniel, I should have attributed it to you.

Taking photographs: It's not even "Fair Use." It's just your right

I'm not so sure about that. While it may be a ludicrous position to get into to try and prevent anyone taking photos (and in most cases anyone asking to use a photograph of our figures will be told, "yes, that's fine – we'd like to be attributed as the manufacturer please", many shops in this country (UK) will tell you that you can't take photos inside their shop. (Yes, I know, we're on a different thing here). My wife was instructed not to by a couple of security guards a while back, for taking of a photo of her mother shopping in ASDA, and somehow I doubt her stating it was her right under a policy oif Fair Use would have held much sway :-) What she was photographing was her mother. Incidental items behind may have been trademarked, but not to ASDA, and it wasn't the trademark owner who was objecting. Certainly when you go into a commercial sense, there are extra issues that can get involved, such as model releases (many photos with people in them are permitted for editorial purposes only).

Despite various nations being part of treaties related to copyright, there still are differences in how the laws agreed to in those treaties are handled by local courts

We still have differences between the courts :-) It's not really until it gets to be a HoL decision that it gets cemented… and then you can still go to Europe.

You're assuming in advance that "Copyright infringement" doesn't include distribution

I didn't see distribution mentioned at all, although I agree that the chances of success/award will be based upon actual damages caused, or potential damage. This may be an issue. If I recast someone else's figure, there is damage as I have deprived a sale of every figure I cast. However if I change that figure, there's no damage as it never existed, so there can be no loss of sale on something that never originally existed.

So, if it is my right to use my own things, and there is no damage caused to the original manufacturer(s) if I change it, even if I sell it, because I've created something that they don't sell anyway, what is to prevent someone from making minor changes (a T-55 is a T-55, is a T-55 – not much sscope for artistic interpretation there. If it don't look lke a T-55 it's not a new variant, it's just wrong!) to a commercially existing model and selling it as their own?

Sorry, I'm arguing with myself here.

I do have the right to sell my own property. So, if I purchase something, I can sell it, or modify and sell it, as I like. The problem occurs in the copying.

(PS – I'm not advocating doing it, I'm looking for the bit that says I can't!)

NYCJadie may have already answered that: "Unless you so transformed the work that you couldn't identify the prior works, it would be an infringement whether you sold those castings or not."

Being an ameteur photographer, I can tell you that a lot of establishments don't allow photography for two reasons. One is that photographs can be used in ways not originally intended. For instance, let's say that I have a photo fo a croeded shop and an acciedent occurs it the shop the next day. I read about the accident in the morning paper and immeadiately call the unfortunate's laywer. Second it that some people take exception to be being photographed without their express permission. It is, of course, perfectly Ok to take anyone's picture in a public place as there is no expectation of privacy. Some people just don't see it this way. Photography is therefore prohibited to avoid potentially creating a threatening environment for customers or even a scene created by an annoyed patron.

GW, or any company, cannot keep anyone from taking pictures of products and posting them, printing them, etc. Companies are annoyed, and some like GW take action, if a person steals their images or trademarked logos and uses them. Those images are copyrighted and protected under the law.

I believe that GeoffQRF is correct when he makes the simple statement, "The problem occurs in the copying." If one makes copies of someone else's work, even in part, that's a copyright violation.

But I would like to address the lack of ethics discussion again. GeoffQRF said that the ethics of copying isn't in doubt. However, I beg to differ. The fact that there are always posts coming up that in essence say, "If I just use the head of a brand X figure…and then make copies of it…that's Ok, right?" Or how 'bout, "I'm just making copies for myself…that's Ok, right?" These postings smack of a either a complete misunderstanding of the intent of copyright (the ethical rationale for such laws) and a lack of personal ethics. If the etheics weren't in question, then there would be not discussion of legalities.

So, again, I will postulate that the fact that there is a discussion about what can be "got away with" under the law without mention of the ethics involved is disturbing.

I think I said, I would have hoped the ethics were not in question… but you're quite right that they evidently are.

There's something I've been wondering-sometimes when I'm working on a conversion of a plastic figure, the only bits that work sometimes are metal. In situations like that, I've often wondered what the ethical perspective would be on copying a part in order to *change* the material to one better suited for the conversion.

For example, I did a conversion a while back of a plastic Imperial Guardsman with a heavy bolter. At the time, the only heavy bolter I could find was a metal one off a Space Marine scout. The problem I had was that the heavy bolter weighed nearly as much as the plastic figure did, and its positioning made the thing prone to toppling forward a lot.

I remember wishing I could cast a copy of the heavy bolter in Alumilite so it'd be lighter and the figure would balance better, and I would have happily thrown out the original metal heavy bolter and the mold in order to preserve the zero-sum nature of the equation, but didn't do it because it still seemed wrong at a gut level.

Do material changes like that count as unethical copying, even if the original and the mold are destroyed? My gut says yes, but I wonder what others think.

(The original conversion is moot because there are plastic heavy bolters available now, but it's still a subject of idle curiosity for me.)

-Mel

MelEbbles,

The reason that I brought up the ethics question is because these sorts of legal questions start decend in the minutia of a legal morasse of convoluted, impenetrable complicated logical what-ifs.

I submit that the *intent* of copyright law is not to simply allow the creator to be selfish (although that is sometimes an unavoidable by-product). Rather it is to protect the creator's right to reap the reweards of their endevours.

In the particular case where you would like to recast a part in a lighter material to make is suit your purpose, there is no ethical issue unless you are casting a dozen bolters without purchasing a dozen originals.

Of course, if you're going to the trouble of casting it anyway, you could always make your own piece… in which case you're free to cast as many of them as you want. :-)

Well, yeah, but that presumes I want to sculpt a new heavy bolter from scratch, and also presumes that I can make it look good.

It requires less effort and time on my part to make a little putty mold and pour some Alumilite than it does to faff around with the sculpting bit, which is why it came to mind as a possible option. (I've had plenty of practice casting stuff I made out of various grades of Sculpey over the years, but my sculpting skills aren't exactly awesome.)

However, GW released plastic scouts that have the right kind of heavy bolter, which solved my problem without having to resort to anything that felt dodgy. I put the question out in this thread because it was a fortuitous confluence of memory, topical subject matter, and idle curiosity.

-Mel

I stand corrected.

I did a bit more research and found I'd been confusing the intented use of a product and the nature of the product. One has no more the right to publish a picture of an unpainted miniature as one does a painted miniature. The IP still belongs to the miniature manufacturer and they can restrict the right to display it.

link

Also, in terms of conversions see Title 17, Chap 1, 106A.a.3.a

link

The owner can restrict conversions.

Of course, here again, quibbling about points of LAW does means nothing without the test of INTENT.

Obviously, if one were to simply take the law a face value, then no one would ever be able to actually play a game with painted miniatures. The LAW states that the copyright holder can seek legal redress for the altered miniature, especially if that minitature has a hideous paint job which might reflect badly on the holder.

Of course this wouldn't pass the chuckle test in court since the INTENT of miniature is to be displayed and painted.

That further supports my position that these discussions, which seem to pop up from time to time, quickly decend from a seemingly innocent inquiry into a morass of stilted barracks room lawyering and quibbling about language that is on par with any discussion concerning a Barker passage in DBM.

Enough.

If you are copying figures, parts of figures, swiping images from manufacturer's websites, etc., then that's ETHICALLY wrong.

Since it is accepted and common practice to modify figures, paint them (sometimes badly), photograph them (sometimes badly), and display them in public, there is no court in the world that would uphold such a trival complaint by a manufacturer. Judges aren't idiots.

In other words, a manufacturer should have the same expectation of the use of their figures as everyone else. The manufacturer has every right to expect that their figures will not be reproduced to their detriment and every single gamer that I pesonally know understands and has this expectation as well.

Copying figures to avoid paying for them is ETHICALLY and LEGALLY wrong. Period. End of story. Any questions?

(Commenting on a U.S. perspective of copyright law.)

Copying miniatures constitutes copyright infringement whether that copy is by a casting or a photograph. Further, if you take that photo of a miniature and place it on a hard drive (or server), that also constitutes (an additional) copyright infringement. Further still, if you place that photograph on the internet, each one of those webpage hits on a different computer constitutes a copyright infringement.

If you take miniatures from 3 different manufacturers and paste them together into a conversion, that is fine. If you cast that miniature, you might be liable for 3 different copyright infringement actions. Further, if you photographed that miniature, you might be liable for 3 different copyright infringements.

Regarding the electronic copying, these are some of the problems lawyers face when applying old laws to new technology. Will someone sue on the basis of copyright infringement by placing a photograph of a model on the internet? Probably not. However, there is a cause of action in that claim. The argument against it is that photographing the models is part of its intended use in dioramas, etc.

Fair Use would not apply to any of these situations. In fact, Fair Use applies to very few situations unless you're a news company or an educator, and even then, they often don't apply. Fair Use is well over-abused as an excuse for copying.

There might be moral rights claims against the conversion of miniatures in countries like Germany and France that recognize the moral rights of authors. That is, the author has some control over how the work is presented after he/she has sold it. This is meant to protect the so-called "integrity" of the work.

As far as ethical issues, I would say those depend upon the individual's ethics. From a professional standpoint, each profession has its own ethics. Although unwritten, I would imagine that the industry largely frowns upon recasting. However, I see many many examples of copyright infringement among sculptors, especially when concerning copyrighted personalities.

In my personal experience with GW and its IP policies which are well publicized on its website, GW is very liberal with allowing its consumers do a lot with its products. Besides trying to clamp down on online sales with retailers, I haven't seen any overly protective policing of its intellectual property. If I see one problem with its policies is that many people read it and take it as the constraints of the law. In fact, the law is much much much more restrictive than GW's policies.

"Since it is accepted and common practice to modify figures, paint them (sometimes badly), photograph them (sometimes badly), and display them in public, there is no court in the world that would uphold such a trival complaint by a manufacturer. Judges aren't idiots."

In fact, there have been a series of such cases ruled by different judges in favor of Mattel Inc. in protecting the BARBIE copyrights and trademarks.

Too true nycjadie – too true!!! Copyright law is so convoluted anymore that you violate it virtually everyday almost unwittingly if you use a cellphone camera, photocopier, or the like during your day depending on what you photo.

These are excellent examples of my point. Even though a law suit can be brought, it doesn't mean that it passes the chuckle test in court. The Barbie suits and Mattel's apparent fetish for frivolous law suits should make them the poster child for the campaign to penalize plaintiffs in stupid law suits that only end up costs the tax payers money. Here are the facts!

"In 1999, Utah-based artist Forsythe received a complaint from Mattel, which claimed that a series of images he posted on the web infringed on its Barbie copyright and trademark. Although Forsythe was not making money from the works, he decided to fight the case, obtaining legal aid via the ACLU. In August 2001, a federal court ruled on behalf of Forsythe; Mattel immediately announced plans to appeal, with a decision expected sometime after May 2003."

The images were of naked Barbie dolls in various restaurant blenders. Mattel lost.

"Mattel sued the band, saying they violated the Barbie trademark and turned Barbie into a sex object, referring to her as a "Blonde Bimbo."[3] They alleged the song had violated their copyrights and trademarks of Barbie, and that its lyrics had tarnished the reputation of their trademark and impinged on their marketing plan. Aqua claimed that Mattel injected their own meanings into the song's lyrics and MCA Records was not about to let their hit single be suppressed without a fight. They contested Mattel's claims and countersued for defamation after Mattel had likened MCA to a bank robber….The lawsuit filed by Mattel was dismissed by the lower courts, and this dismissal was upheld, though Mattel took their case up to the Supreme Court of the United States (Mattel's appeal was later rejected). In 2002, Judge Alex Kozinski ruled the song was protected as a parody under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and also threw out the defamation lawsuit that Aqua's record company filed against Mattel. Kozinski concluded his ruling by saying, "The parties are advised to chill."[5] The case was dismissed, and in the process, it garnered lots of media attention for the song and the band."

This is probably the most famous suit. Mattel took a beating on this one. Lost in lower court, lost in the court of appeals, then got rebuffed by the United States Supreme Court who didn't think there was enough merit to hear the case.

"An art exhibit in a small Brazilian town showing Barbie in intimate poses with another female has draw the ire of toy make Mattel. The company says it artist Karin Schwarz doesn't remove the exhibit it will go to court, according to a Sao Paulo newspaper."

Mattel never brough suit. I guess they learned their lesson in 2003 with the other photo exhibition. They probably though they would simply intimidate the artist--she wasn't

These cases fell flat on their faces and the Barbie icon was even being used for it's intended purpose. Do you really think with these cases in the books that a figure manufacturer is going to go to court over pictures of their figures being used for their intended purpose?

These are good examples of my point. Why do I read posts, not only here, but in many miniatures related sites asking whether it's Ok to "copy" (recast) a figure, part of figure etc.? Is it that the individuals are really trying to find out to satisfy some burning, deep seated curiosity? Are they avocational philosophers searching for the ultimate truth? Or are they people who are hoping that someone will tell them it's Ok to rip-off another person's art?

You decide.

These threads always decend into a tangled morass of circuitous logic. Loosing, along the way in their path of confusing red herrings and villification of copyright owners, the real, simple answer:

If you make a copy to avoid buying a figure--that's wrong. It's unethical. Period. Don't do it.

P.S.
On further reflection, I decided to do a little more reseach. Here's the list of Barbie based suits--all of which were lost:

A commercial by automobile company Nissan featuring dolls similar to Barbie and Ken was the subject of another lawsuit in 1997. In the commercial, a female doll is lured into a car by a doll resembling GI Joe to the dismay of a Ken-like doll, accompanied by Van Halen's version of the song You Really Got Me. According to the makers of the commercial, the dolls' names were Roxanne, Nick and Tad. Mattel claimed that the commercial had done "irreparable damage" to its products, but lost the copyright infringement lawsuit.

Saturday Night Live aired a parody of Barbie commercials featuring the fictional "Gangsta Bitch Barbie" doll and a "Tupac Ken" doll.

The Tonight Show with Jay Leno displayed a fictional "Barbie Crystal Meth Lab" which mocked how Barbie usually has a career that is "in keeping with the times or in this case, in keeping with society's current problems."

Malibu Stacy is a parody of Barbie in the cartoon series The Simpsons. In the 1994 episode Lisa vs. Malibu Stacy, a talking Stacy doll is introduced, speaking phrases such as "let's buy make-up so the boys will like us". Lisa is disgusted by the "sexist drivel spouted by Malibu Stacy," leading her to market an alternative "Lisa Lionheart". The episode is based loosely on the controversy surrounding Teen Talk Barbie from 1992.

In 1999 Mattel sued the Utah artist Tom Forsythe over a series of photographs called Food Chain Barbie, which included a photograph of a Barbie doll in a blender. Mattel lost the lawsuit and was ordered to pay $1.8 USD million in costs to Mr. Forsythe.

In November 2002 a New York judge refused an injunction against the British-based artist Susanne Pitt, who had produced a doll called Dungeon Barbie in bondage clothing. Judge Laura Taylor Swain stated: "To the court's knowledge, there is no Mattel line of S&M Barbie."

To be fair, Mattel may have won some suits and I simply failed to run across any.

Why do I read posts, not only here, but in many miniatures related sites asking whether it's Ok to "copy" (recast) a figure, part of figure etc.?

A good question, when it is so clearly wrong, evidently both legally and morally. Is it unawarenes of the law, a belief that if nough people say they also do it that makes it somehow ok, or is it considered acceptable on the basis that 'they won't do anything about it'?

The fact that it won't be pursued in the vast majroity of cases, mainly on the grounds that there is little point spending out a fortune to sue a 'man of straw', doesn't make it right, or even legal.

As far as the lundicrousy of what can go sucessfully to court, Stella Liebeck. Note that Bogle got the opposite result in the UK.

Intent is generally quite well defined in law, at least in the UK. I'm not aware of any requirement for intent in the UK legislation. It's pretty much strict liability.