"Is making casts of a conversion illegal?" Topic

Now that most everyone's vented all their steam about piracy, I'd like some opinions on something I'd like to do: I plan on taking a long-oop model, casting a dummy to build up the conversion from, and then cast the conversions. This is for personal use, mind you, not that it really matters much.
The specific model I'd be using is an old Global Games Legions of Steel or Planetstorm UNE trooper, and I'm converting him to look like the fighter-suits from the Vexille anime. funimation.com/vexille or vexille.jp has a better pic of the suit I'm trying to build.

Where do I stand on this, legally speaking?

It's illegal – you don't have the right to make casts of that figure. Period.

Granted, I don't have mini-production rights for the Vexille fighter suit. That wasn't the actual intent of the question, now that I've had some time to think about it.

I was intending the question to be a little more general. How much modification does it take before it's a derivative work?

Granted, I don't have mini-production rights for the Vexille fighter suit.

You miss my point. When you bought the original figure, the purchase did not include the right to make copies of it.

What actually is it that's protected? Can I make, in greenstuff, a figure from another range – say a civilian then cast it up. It's my sculpt – I did all the sculpting.

OK, thanks Ed. not the answer I wanted to hear, but it's an answer at least.

I do think that the discussion should stay open for Flashman's expansion, since I'm in the dark on that as well.

"I was intending the question to be a little more general. How much modification does it take before it's a derivative work?"

There is no percentage written in stone per se, but it's a whole lot. I would say if you have completely transformed the work into something that will make the former completely unrecognizable then you might be close.

Well take comfort that the likelihood of being prosecuted is next to nil. Though telecasting your intention here nudges your proximity to nil a bit! =D

Copyright includes distortions, modification, and parts of the work. So if its recognizable, its protected.

What would be cool is some "blanks" sold like clip-art – figures in generic clothes, weapons, helmets, shields, etc, that you could buy, combine, convert, and then be free to duplicate as you would. That would help the almost-sculptors to get creative.

In the meantime, you either pay a sculptor or learn to sculpt. How hard can it be?

Andrew

What would be cool is some "blanks" …

Like these? link

It would also be cool if companies would sell people the rights to make copies of their old out of production figs. But I can understand why they don't.

But it would be neat. I'd love to buy the rights off of games workshop to produce the old noise marines for personal use.

"It would also be cool if companies would sell people the rights to make copies of their old out of production figs. But I can understand why they don't."

That would be very nice, wouldn't it. Especially with some of those old lines that don't have any possibility of being put back into production.

Derivative works are still copyright – if you convert a figure, the *copyright* on your converted figure belongs to whoever made the figure you converted it from – the figure is yours, but any rights to reproduce it aren't.

I wonder if people on forums about other sorts of art-products have discussions about reproduction for personal use?
Like… if instead of gaming miniatures I collected Hummel figurines… and I wanted a bunch of copies of 'Boy and Rabid Squirrel' (a true Hummel classic)… would it cross my mind that I didn't have the right to cast up a bunch of them to line my bookcase?
Most art-products… movies/music/posters/figurines/jewelry… are of a 'one is sufficient' nature.
I can imagine some OCD person making multiple backup copies of their music CDs… taken to a ridiculous extreme this might lead to a guy with a hundred copies of 'Revolver' in a box in his closet… but since he can only listen to one copy at a time… since there seems no sensible reason to make so many copies… it just doesn't 'feel' the same as someone who made a hundred copies of some GW Chaos Marine.
I'm a painter, and if I sold a painting to someone and they made a bunch of copies to hang in their own home (no selling!) I might find it odd… but I can't say I'd feel violated.
So how much of the concern of copying gaming minis for personal use peculiar to the fact that gaming minis are normally used in larger numbers with multiple copies of individual sculpts?

I doubt I'm making any sense… and I'm not promoting copying… I just think it's an interesting component of the 'discussion'.

"What actually is it that's protected? Can I make, in greenstuff, a figure from another range – say a civilian then cast it up. It's my sculpt – I did all the sculpting."

In answer to Flash – so far as I know, if it's a range which requires a licence from the original producers to make any representations of characters (e.g., characters from a particular movie), it would be illegal to make any such representations in any form if you don't hold the licence.

Presumably this also applies to named ranges of figures originally produced by a particular manufacturer.

I seem to remember an episode of 'This Old House' where one of the workers was looking for a match to a certain cabinet knob.
He has no luck finding more so he takes the one he has and has a bunch of copies cast up so the kitchen will be consistently knobbed.

The knob was probably antique… but supposing it wasn't the same laws as regard copying minis would apply… but instead it was presented as resourceful and no mention was made of 'don't do this at home'.

"The knob was probably antique… but supposing it wasn't the same laws as regard copying minis would apply… but instead it was presented as resourceful and no mention was made of 'don't do this at home'."

A lot of that hardware is functional and that would be protected by patent law. Patents have very short terms of protection. If the knob was ornamental, then it's likely that the ornamentation is in the public domain. There's only so many designs you can make for a knob. Therefore, the copyrightability of the ornamentation in the knob is likely very very small, if at all. Not like copying a noise marine.

There are some misconceptions here.

1. If you change it by at least 30% (this is where you'd have to be careful – what is 30%???), you can reproduce it without worry about copyright.

2. If you aren't going to reproduce for DISTRIBUTION – it is just for your own use, and you legally obtained the original, you are probably ok, but make sure you check your country's laws (not sure if you are in the U.S. or not).

Assuming those two have been satisfied, you should be ok legally.

Now, as to the ethics of re-casting…we all know that is a hotbed topic. I would NEVER advocate re-casting something that is currently in production. That is robbing the author of their rights and leads to the death of the industry.

If the item is OOP and is likely never to come back into print, then I think it is a little more gray, especially if you will never distribute it.

Aaron

Both your 'misconceptions' seem to be misconceptions. Where on earth do you get those ideas from?

1. I've never seen a 30%. I can recall seeing an 'up to 5%' re copying printed works on the fair useage. I don't remember any 30% changes. If I take the top half of one figure and marry it to the bottom half of another figure – each is 50% changed. Not really.

2. The act of copying itself is the breach. Whether it would be worth the cost of taking it to court for an odd figure is another matter. When you buy a figure, you have the legal right to use that figure, in some cases you will find you don't even have the legal right to convert it at all! Grey area, the last one.

So, some very dubious advice there.

Why not just buy the figs and do the conversions? They show up on ebay form time to time and I have access to a bunch of LoS stuff.

Copyright is the right to reproduce (which means distribute) as well as prevent others from reproducing. Therefore, even if you make your own copy, it's infringement (barring a statutory exception).

The following paragraph is from the US Copyright page (here – copyright.gov/help/faq/) It seems to clarify this question of altering an original work.

"How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent."

In fact, I think the site probably answers any questions anyone might have about copyright law in the US.

And here is it for the UK (http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/) -

"[Copyright Myth No.] 6. If I change someone else's work I can claim it as my own.
The act of copying or adapting someone else's work is a breach of copyright. Also any adaptation will be legally regarded as a derived work; so if you simply adapt the work of others, it will still be their work, and they have every right to object, (and are also entitled to any money you make from their work).

The only safe option is to create something that is not copied or adapted from the work of others.

There is nothing to stop you being inspired by the work of others, but when it comes to your own work, start with a blank sheet and do not try to copy what others have done."

Amazing what you can find on the Internet, isn't it?!!

Ugh, I hate trolling eBay for anything. I really don't want to go to that option, but it beats legal issues. It's enough of a headache trying to maintain a government clearance without asking for trouble with IP and/or copyright law troubles, too.

Wheres JI when you really need him … oh yeah – I'd forgotten !

If I sculpted a big nose on one and copied it could I be protected if I claim it's satire?

So how are DJs who put out records with sampled music on them able to get away with it… ?
Or are they?

A good example – OK, not exactly like – was George Harrison and My Sweet Lord. Some of it was deemed to be similar to part of a totally unknown prior work and Harrison had to pay up compensation.

So how are DJs who put out records with sampled music on them able to get away with it… ?

Easy – they pay the rights holder to license it….

Which, of course, you could also ask about if you wanbt to make and cast a lot of conversions. GW would probably say no, anyone else worth asking.