Today in Titanicus I...

[Noserenda]

The group that run most of the specialist FB groups is weirdly intolerant of 3D printing in general and not open to discussing it or any of their weird power tripping rules in general :( Only reason im still in there is to see pics of models tbh, like those armigers which were really cool.

[SkimaskMohawk]

I find it very weird for AT, because you can add so much character to your models, battlegroup and terrain with 3d printed/forumware stuff and gw doesn't even make the appropriate 6mm stuff to buy in the first place lol.

[splayedpaintbrush]

I saw that post and thought they looked great. I also thought oh here we go again, as this seems to happen a lot in that group.

The group has rules you agree to when you join. Although getting kicked out does seem harsh especially as he seemed to be chatting to at least one mod in the comments.

 

The group mods have taken in my opinion a very harsh stance on this topic, but possibly understandable. Must admit I'd have to go check this forum's rules now, as can't remember B&C stance on this. Thankfully there are a number of other FB groups where his posts would be welcomed, here's two that I'm part of aswell:

'Adeptus Titanicus Fans'

'Adeptus Titanicus, Epic (All Editions!), and Aeronautica Imperialis group'

 

Its not quite true to say GW don't make that model. It's just made at 40k scale not AT. The IP infringement is against the model's design not the actual manufactured product. So if the Armiger was a digital copy of the 40k model then the group's rules were broken. It wouldn't matter what scale the copy was, it's still a copy, as if it had been copies in a more traditional method.

If it was a digital sculpt inspired by the GW Armiger then in my opinion that should be allowed but I think that's the grey area that's hard to judge.

 

I'm sorry for your friend, I do think it hurts the diversity of the groups hobby productivity. As using your friend as an example, he'd produced great stuff that was worth looking at and getting inspired by.

[SkimaskMohawk]

I completely understand the argument that he agreed to certain rules and how design infringement works. The real point was how vanguard minis get an inexplicable pass for their rules and how the one mod was going to 180 the decision if it was from vanguard. That's the thing with rules: you have to enforce them consistently or the rule itself is meaningless.

[Fajita Fan]

The difference is that the third party knockoff isn't just a 3d scan of a 28mm model and scaled down 25%, that company CADed that whole model start to finish.  

 

 

 

So if the Armiger was a digital copy of the 40k model then the group's rules were broken. It wouldn't matter what scale the copy was, it's still a copy, as if it had been copies in a more traditional method.

Exactly.  

 

There's a guy on Thingiverse who is lovingly recreating the BFG ships for easier 3d printing, he even has a webpage with notes on how he creates the shapes.  That's different than 3d scanning or recasting a GW model.  I'm 3d printing some Custodes vehicles at AT scale that I'm sure were scanned from 28mm vehicles but then again I'm not posting them on GW's platforms. GW will never make models of Custodes grav tanks at AT scales and if they do I'd be happy to buy those because my prints are, shall we say, rough. 

 

For people like me who want to get a little BFG group going again 3d printing is my only real option. I wouldn't expect GW to support posting pics of anything I print though.

[SkimaskMohawk]

The difference is that the third party knockoff isn't just a 3d scan of a 28mm model and scaled down 25%, that company CADed that whole model start to finish.  

 

 

 

So if the Armiger was a digital copy of the 40k model then the group's rules were broken. It wouldn't matter what scale the copy was, it's still a copy, as if it had been copies in a more traditional method.

Exactly.  

 

There's a guy on Thingiverse who is lovingly recreating the BFG ships for easier 3d printing, he even has a webpage with notes on how he creates the shapes.  That's different than 3d scanning or recasting a GW model.  I'm 3d printing some Custodes vehicles at AT scale that I'm sure were scanned from 28mm vehicles but then again I'm not posting them on GW's platforms. GW will never make models of Custodes grav tanks at AT scales and if they do I'd be happy to buy those because my prints are, shall we say, rough. 

 

For people like me who want to get a little BFG group going again 3d printing is my only real option. I wouldn't expect GW to support posting pics of anything I print though.

 

Respectfully to you both, that's not how design infringement works. The mechanism of duplication isn't important, hell, it doesn't need to be a 1:1 copy to qualify. It just needs to be significantly similar to the protected design to cause a problem. I'm a little pedantic about it, because design infringement is what the group was claiming the armigers were doing, while Vanguard does not. Not recast, not scanned 3d. Just infringement 

[Spazmolytic]

Greetings everyone! I have rarely traveled north of the works in progress section until I got my hands on the latest starter set. I really wanted to get into AT when it was first launched but funds wouldn't allow it. I held off posting in here till I had something to post, so here goes. These guy's are going to be a homebrew legion, same goes with my knight house. When I get a few more completed or near completed I'll start a thread so all you much more experienced players can help a fellow out 

 

[Fajita Fan]

 

 

The difference is that the third party knockoff isn't just a 3d scan of a 28mm model and scaled down 25%, that company CADed that whole model start to finish.

 

 

So if the Armiger was a digital copy of the 40k model then the group's rules were broken. It wouldn't matter what scale the copy was, it's still a copy, as if it had been copies in a more traditional method.

Exactly.

 

There's a guy on Thingiverse who is lovingly recreating the BFG ships for easier 3d printing, he even has a webpage with notes on how he creates the shapes. That's different than 3d scanning or recasting a GW model. I'm 3d printing some Custodes vehicles at AT scale that I'm sure were scanned from 28mm vehicles but then again I'm not posting them on GW's platforms. GW will never make models of Custodes grav tanks at AT scales and if they do I'd be happy to buy those because my prints are, shall we say, rough.

 

For people like me who want to get a little BFG group going again 3d printing is my only real option. I wouldn't expect GW to support posting pics of anything I print though.

Respectfully to you both, that's not how design infringement works. The mechanism of duplication isn't important, hell, it doesn't need to be a 1:1 copy to qualify. It just needs to be significantly similar to the protected design to cause a problem. I'm a little pedantic about it, because design infringement is what the group was claiming the armigers were doing, while Vanguard does not. Not recast, not scanned 3d. Just infringement

If they’re allowing pictures of a third party company’s models that are similar to their designs at another scale but not allowing 3D printed models that look like scaled down scans of their models then it’s fair to assume that’s what’s going on. It’s really no different to hacking together your own scales down model from plastic.

 

There’s a guy scratchbuilding a huge marine strike cruiser he intends to enter in this year’s Golden Demon and seems to be under the impression that since he built it himself without scanning a BFG model it will be allowed. :shrug:

 

Trademark and IP law fascinate me btw.

[splayedpaintbrush]

Respectfully to you both, that's not how design infringement works. The mechanism of duplication isn't important, hell, it doesn't need to be a 1:1 copy to qualify. It just needs to be significantly similar to the protected design to cause a problem. I'm a little pedantic about it, because design infringement is what the group was claiming the armigers were doing, while Vanguard does not. Not recast, not scanned 3d. Just infringement

Well actually that's what my original post does say, or admittedly in my own head says

[splayedpaintbrush]

Greetings everyone! I have rarely traveled north of the works in progress section until I got my hands on the latest starter set. I really wanted to get into AT when it was first launched but funds wouldn't allow it. I held off posting in here till I had something to post, so here goes. These guy's are going to be a homebrew legion, same goes with my knight house. When I get a few more completed or near completed I'll start a thread so all you much more experienced players can help a fellow out 

 

That is outstanding! The weathered paint work is excellent, and please tell me those are decals you've used, if freehand that's amazing.

Really like that strong orange colour. Look forward to seeing more :)

[Fajita Fan]

Greetings everyone! I have rarely traveled north of the works in progress section until I got my hands on the latest starter set. I really wanted to get into AT when it was first launched but funds wouldn't allow it. I held off posting in here till I had something to post, so here goes. These guy's are going to be a homebrew legion, same goes with my knight house. When I get a few more completed or near completed I'll start a thread so all you much more experienced players can help a fellow out 

 

Your orange is crazy! My oranges never come out like that.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

 

The difference is that the third party knockoff isn't just a 3d scan of a 28mm model and scaled down 25%, that company CADed that whole model start to finish.

So if the Armiger was a digital copy of the 40k model then the group's rules were broken. It wouldn't matter what scale the copy was, it's still a copy, as if it had been copies in a more traditional method.

Exactly.

 

There's a guy on Thingiverse who is lovingly recreating the BFG ships for easier 3d printing, he even has a webpage with notes on how he creates the shapes. That's different than 3d scanning or recasting a GW model. I'm 3d printing some Custodes vehicles at AT scale that I'm sure were scanned from 28mm vehicles but then again I'm not posting them on GW's platforms. GW will never make models of Custodes grav tanks at AT scales and if they do I'd be happy to buy those because my prints are, shall we say, rough.

 

For people like me who want to get a little BFG group going again 3d printing is my only real option. I wouldn't expect GW to support posting pics of anything I print though.

Respectfully to you both, that's not how design infringement works. The mechanism of duplication isn't important, hell, it doesn't need to be a 1:1 copy to qualify. It just needs to be significantly similar to the protected design to cause a problem. I'm a little pedantic about it, because design infringement is what the group was claiming the armigers were doing, while Vanguard does not. Not recast, not scanned 3d. Just infringement

If they’re allowing pictures of a third party company’s models that are similar to their designs at another scale but not allowing 3D printed models that look like scaled down scans of their models then it’s fair to assume that’s what’s going on. It’s really no different to hacking together your own scales down model from plastic.

 

There’s a guy scratchbuilding a huge marine strike cruiser he intends to enter in this year’s Golden Demon and seems to be under the impression that since he built it himself without scanning a BFG model it will be allowed. :shrug:

 

Trademark and IP law fascinate me btw.

 

 

It's not an GW group, just a rather large fan group. The rules to be fair have a pretty blanket ban on 3d prints, forumware, recasts and everything else that infringes IP all . But allow anything Vanguard branded, to the point where my friend's 6mm armiger would have been allowed if it was made by Vanguard, regardless of the fact that it still would infringe regardless of the maker. 

 

 

Respectfully to you both, that's not how design infringement works. The mechanism of duplication isn't important, hell, it doesn't need to be a 1:1 copy to qualify. It just needs to be significantly similar to the protected design to cause a problem. I'm a little pedantic about it, because design infringement is what the group was claiming the armigers were doing, while Vanguard does not. Not recast, not scanned 3d. Just infringement

Well actually that's what my original post does say, or admittedly in my own head says

Infringement is the grey area I'm talking about.

 

Ahhh you're so miffed/puzzled at the Vangard reversal scenario. I can only assume that the mod does not have full product knowledge of all miniature manufacturers and was assuming that if Vangard (or any other manufacturer) was producing something that 'infringed enough' then GW would have already shut down that particular line/model.

Hence if it was bought legitimately from a manufacturer then the mods have no right to ban it.

 

The trouble is, the infringement part is subjective. How close is too close?

I mean Thunderhawk vs not Thunderhawk, to me the similarities are obvious and so are the differences.

 

I'm not defending the FB group rules here, I'm just explaining my interception of their rules. I see it as if they are terrified of 3d printed model parts that bare resemblance to GW parts, and hence being seen to endorse 'ip theft' in the eyes of the GW legal machine. Which is a shame as I see 3d printing as just another tool in the converting toolbox - which used responsibly it is.

Be interesting to see if there was some 3d printing of Vangard product whether the group responded the same eh! I'm sure Vangard would expect them too (as would I).

 

 

Oh my friend had quite an exchange with their entire mod team. Their argument was indeed that GW would have launched lawsuits against Vanguard if they cared, but then why care about individual users? Why take something down if its an exact replica of GW's, but leave it up if it's sold by another company? Inconsistencies tend to trigger me, doubly so when it comes to rules/law and applications thereof. 

 

 

Here's some of Vanguard's stuff that's blatantly infringing designs. These IMO are all much more than "significantly similar" to GWs; 

 

Turrets are straight off the razorbacks

 

Some straight up falcons

 

Xiphon's pretty on the money too

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by SkimaskMohawk

[SkimaskMohawk]

And in a quick double post, I too love the hound. Gotta finish off the very last of my weathering so I can post my finished titans lol.

[Fajita Fan]

Yeah, a lot of forums and places have policies against scanned 3d printing stuff, this forum included IIRC, because they're afraid of GW's lawyers.  Again, IP and trademark law fascinates me and it would be what I'd go into if I went to law school.  They can allow a 3rd party company's miniatures because GW hasn't shut them down yet but won't allow prints of directly scanned GW's products.

 

In many countries, the US included, it's very expensive to defend yourself in court against big companies. In the US at least it's next to impossible to collect your legal fees even if you win your case!  Example: in the US if a large company sues you for infringing on their IP and you win the case they don't have to pay your legal fees.  That means if you're making $50 a month in ad revenue on your site but it costs you $10k to defend yourself in court you end up just doing what the big company says because it's cheaper.  

 

When AT was released and the alternate weapon sprues weren't around I found a complete model on Thingiverse of a 28mm scale Warlord titan and printed the carapace laser blasters because GW played this "We don't know when/if the other weapon sprues are coming..." game.  I was told not to post links to that but it was totally fine for me to post about how I was designing and printing my own Quake cannon.  Basically the forum owners don't want to assume liability for me posting how to print GW's 28mm scale weapons at AT scale but had no problem with me posting how to make your designs in TinkerCAD.

 

Because 3rd party companies like Vanguard are creating their own models to print or cast the forum or site owners in question are not infringing on GW's designs by allowing them to be posted.  If GW has a problem with Vanguard's designs being too similar to theirs they can sue Vanguard but it's harder for them to justify filing C&D orders on sites with pictures of Vanguard's products.  

 

Europe has their own trademark and IP laws further complicating our wonderfully international hobby. 

[Sword Brother Adelard]

I think it's overzealous. It's also difficult to enforce. If someone 3D prints a tiny rhino to go on a base, how do they know it's not an Epic one if the copy is close enough?

 

I think if someone is 3D printing something that they cannot buy from GW, because GW don't make it, or have never made it. Then the group should allow it to be shown.

 

Kicking him out of the group was OTT.

[Fajita Fan]

I printed Rhinos a little bigger than Epic scale for my bases and they barely fit, I do think we should have round bases instead of ovals. My Custodes grav tanks do not fit :( Edited June 6, 2020 by Fajita Fan

[splayedpaintbrush]

You have a good point there @SkimaskMohawk I picked on the Thunderhawk because I've printed what looks to be a copy of an old epic version. In a similar manner to Fajita Fan, scaled it up for use on the base (crashed over two bases to be exact). I've not posted that on the FB group simply because I can't be arsed with the aggro.

I've not really looked at much else of the Vangard line. Out of curiosity I did look to see if they already sold an armiger stand in.

 

@Fajita Fan I like the oval bases, weirdly the warhound annoys me a little being the only titan on a round base. I like round ones on the Knights though. I think it's because the facing matters for the titans and the method for determining that effect is dealt with via the templates in the way they do.

[Spazmolytic]

 

Greetings everyone! I have rarely traveled north of the works in progress section until I got my hands on the latest starter set. I really wanted to get into AT when it was first launched but funds wouldn't allow it. I held off posting in here till I had something to post, so here goes. These guy's are going to be a homebrew legion, same goes with my knight house. When I get a few more completed or near completed I'll start a thread so all you much more experienced players can help a fellow out 

 

That is outstanding! The weathered paint work is excellent, and please tell me those are decals you've used, if freehand that's amazing.

Really like that strong orange colour. Look forward to seeing more

 

 

 

 

Greetings everyone! I have rarely traveled north of the works in progress section until I got my hands on the latest starter set. I really wanted to get into AT when it was first launched but funds wouldn't allow it. I held off posting in here till I had something to post, so here goes. These guy's are going to be a homebrew legion, same goes with my knight house. When I get a few more completed or near completed I'll start a thread so all you much more experienced players can help a fellow out 

 

 

Your orange is crazy! My oranges never come out like that.

 

 

Thanks to both of you for the complements. The skulls & checker pattern are stencils but the racing stripe is freehand. The Oranges I use are Mythical Orange & Lava Orange from Army Painter, Orange from Pro Acryl, Fire Orange from Reaper, Ice Yellow mixed in for highlight. 

If anybody is interested, I base with Metal Color Steal, thin layer of chipping fluid, thin layer of white (Pro Acryl & white ink), then thin layer of Lava Orange (a few drops of Pro Acryl orange) everywhere, thin layer of Mythical orange ( few drops of Pro Acryl) on the upper parts. Chip away at what I want chipped then thin glazes of the same colours to to blend & brighten up/establish colour. First part is air brushed but glazing is brush work

[SkimaskMohawk]

@fajita fan I get what you're saying. But to sum up, "making your own cad designs" doesn't matter if they're infringing on a registered design. If there's rules about no IP infringing, it needs to be enforced equally to keep it as a rule to be respected. The Facebook page is equally guilty of accommodating design infringement regardless if it's from thingiverse or vanguard.

 

At least, that's the argument I'd make. Law is pretty fluid and it depends on how convincing an argument both side makes; it's hard to make a flat out wrong argument.

 

A lot of the thingiverse tanks and stuff seem to need to get scaled down a bit in the software before printing to make them fit the scale appropriately.

Edited June 6, 2020 by SkimaskMohawk

[Mandragola]

Copying someone else's design is still IP infringement even if you draw it yourself in CAD. It's the same as if you typed out a Harry Potter book yourself and sold it. You might have done the manual work but the idea is someone else's. So those Armigers are clearly in breach of IP.

 

Other stuff, where you're designing it from scratch, is more likely to be ok. So for example the Imperators we often see are fine, whether scratch built or 3d printed.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

But that's not the group doing the theft. It's the individual. And Facebook is not liable for the acta of the publishers. It's overzealous.

[Mandragola]

Not sure I understand. The group's rules are that you can't use it to show stolen stuff. Thy go particularly hard on people profiting from IP theft, or using bought, stolen stuff. I think that's basically reasonable.

[SkimaskMohawk]

But they don't. My friends armigers are 100% design infringement, but they're for his personal use and he's not selling them. According to their mods, those same models would have been allowed if sold by vanguard.

 

It's the disconnect of vanguard selling some shady, infringing stuff while personal use Infringing stuff is frowned on.

[Mandragola]

Fair enough. I don't really understand how vanguard gets away with its stuff. They must have had some careful legal advice, I suppose.

[malika666]

Greetings everyone! I have rarely traveled north of the works in progress section until I got my hands on the latest starter set. I really wanted to get into AT when it was first launched but funds wouldn't allow it. I held off posting in here till I had something to post, so here goes. These guy's are going to be a homebrew legion, same goes with my knight house. When I get a few more completed or near completed I'll start a thread so all you much more experienced players can help a fellow out

 

Please do a tutorial for that orange!