3D Printing the Modern Age Recasting

[Guest]

At the end of the day, for some 3D Printing can be very divisive.... I get that stance, a few years ago it was mine.

 

I think and this was my turning point marines went from being very customisable to little or none, 3D printing gives me some of that part of the hobby I loved about the other kits like Tactical etc.

 

Am I dancing in some moral grey area? Sure. But I get what I want out of my hobby, I don't play.

 

But overall I find it difficult to tell people what they can spend their money on.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Brother Captain Arkley

[Halandaar]

10 minutes ago, Bung said:

 

Getting the bits you want was Always an issue with GW for decades and why there are Tutorials out there to help people with Green Stuff or Blue Stuff moulds to copy them at home. 

Same goes for third party Upgrades, GW doesnt sell moulded Shoulderpads for every chapter, but that vendor may have something that fits.

There is even an english company selling etched brass with some chapter Symbols 

(Something you could do at Home too).

 

All that stuff is there for over a decade and accepted practise in scale modelling and even was with Games Workshop.

 

But now with a 3d printer its piracy when i print some upgrade parts for my armies?

 

Thats some Logic i cant follow.

 

To be fair I don't recall anybody suggesting that stuff like upgrade parts or chapter icon shoulderpads amounted to piracy - people seem to universally support that aspect of 3d modelling and printing.

[Bung]

6 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

To be fair I don't recall anybody suggesting that stuff like upgrade parts or chapter icon shoulderpads amounted to piracy - people seem to universally support that aspect of 3d modelling and printing.

 

The Point is GW sells Legion Shoulder Pads for the Legions, where we are Back at the piracy argument.

 

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

To be fair I don't recall anybody suggesting that stuff like upgrade parts or chapter icon shoulderpads amounted to piracy - people seem to universally support that aspect of 3d modelling and printing.

I can see where he is going with that...

 

Take a Mk 6 pad with a Ultra symbol, is it piracy if you add a ultra symbol to one in blender? 

 

Grey... Grey everywhere. I have Ultra pads in pretty much all marks, Are my MkIII, VI, VII and Gravis suddenly a piracy issue? 

 

I am not calling you out I am actually curious.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Brother Captain Arkley

[Sword Brother Adelard]

Weren't basic pads one of the specific shapes the Chapterhouse case said GW could copyright/trademark?

[StratoKhan]

Hmm… It seems like the topic was started to discuss whether 3D printing is a modern age form of recasting, and now we are back on the same old argument about about whether piracy is good, bad, or on a spectrum of good and bad.

[Halandaar]

2 hours ago, Brother Captain Arkley said:

I can see where he is going with that...

 

Take a Mk 6 pad with a Ultra symbol, is it piracy if you add a ultra symbol to one in blender? 

 

Grey... Grey everywhere. I have Ultra pads in pretty much all marks, Are my MkIII, VI, VII and Gravis suddenly a piracy issue? 

 

I am not calling you out I am actually curious.

 

Well the Ultramarine chapter icon is just the Greek letter omega displayed upside down; GW would have a tough time trying to argue that's their property, any more than other generic shapes and symbols they use such as teardrops, lightning bolts, chevrons and Maltese crosses. I don't know enough about it to be able to say whether something like the  Imperial Fist or Night Lords icons would be protectable or just viewed as fairly straightforward vector drawings of generic shapes. Like the Aquila, despite the fact that double headed eagles are common in historical heraldry, the Imperial Aquila we are familiar with is a very specific rendering of that idea. I suppose that one probably is copyrightable.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

 

Well the Ultramarine chapter icon is just the Greek letter omega displayed upside down; GW would have a tough time trying to argue that's their property, any more than other generic shapes and symbols they use such as teardrops, lightning bolts, chevrons and Maltese crosses. I don't know enough about it to be able to say whether something like the  Imperial Fist or Night Lords icons would be protectable or just viewed as fairly straightforward vector drawings of generic shapes. Like the Aquila, despite the fact that double headed eagles are common in historical heraldry, the Imperial Aquila we are familiar with is a very specific rendering of that idea. I suppose that one probably is copyrightable.

 

No no thats fair, maybe the Ultra one was too easy to explain.

 

I am not going to pretend for one minute maybe some of the things I have and will print border on piracy in fact what I am currently painting is probably that. 

 

Not going to defend that either. 

[Bung]

23 minutes ago, StratoKhan said:

Hmm… It seems like the topic was started to discuss whether 3D printing is a modern age form of recasting, and now we are back on the same old argument about about whether piracy is good, bad, or on a spectrum of good and bad.

 

As long as people claim everything 3d printed is piracy it wont change.

[Sword Brother Adelard]

26 minutes ago, StratoKhan said:

Hmm… It seems like the topic was started to discuss whether 3D printing is a modern age form of recasting, and now we are back on the same old argument about about whether piracy is good, bad, or on a spectrum of good and bad.

It seems that no one seems to be really disputing that they are in essence the same thing where the subject is a direct copy? So now we're just in the morality of the issue. 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Sword Brother Adelard

[Noserenda]

Ech, if someone designs a model themselves from a GW preview thats certainly not piracy by any sensible definition. Copyright infringement perhaps? Recasting i guess is, but personally i know my problem with recasters is usually them exploiting their workforce paying them pennies and not providing PPE to save us a few bob rather than the piracy, something notably absent from 3d printing unless you do it to yourself :D 

Im not sure what trying to tar unrelated things with what most people consider a non crime is seeking to achieve other than wildly undermining some fraters credibility though.

Its a good point on the hypocrisy of being ok with pirating models that are oop, copyright lasts an absurd amount of time so its exactly as ethically wrong to pirate/infringe on an oop model as it is something still being sold, certainly in any legal sense.

[Vazzy]

Personally, as someone who bought recast in the past and still does on occasion, as well as having seen 3D printed models, I think there’s a limit for both, and both have a place in the hobby. 
 

Personally, I think 90% of GW knockoff prints are ugly as sin, and when I’ve had to go against them, I haven’t enjoyed it, because invariably they’re not painted or painted well. The exception here for me being BFG ships.

 

Recast, on the other hand, has been outright better than FW many times, at least from my supplier. They’re the exception not the rule, and I’ve largely moved in from remasters and buy Tortuga instead (who are not pirates despite the whinging that goes on around them.) 

 

I think the concern around both things is majorly overblown. Neither are as accessible as proponents and detractors claim, and I can attest that I’d rather buy GW as it inherently looks better a lot of the time.  I won’t begrudge anyone who uses either though, and they’re still part of the hobby even if I look down on them from one inch higher horse. 
 

TL;DR: Who cares? They aren’t going to put GW out of business, and you don’t need to simp for a corporation. Focus on yourself and don’t be a judgmental dick. The 3D prints and recasts don’t diminish your hobby or fun. 
 

Edit: How do you anti piracy people feel about guys like Artel or Tortuga? 
 

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Vazzy

[Focslain]

17 minutes ago, Vazzy said:

Edit: How do you anti piracy people feel about guys like Artel or Tortuga? 
 

 

From what I've seen at least of Artel, is that they do alternate versions of what GW sells, so it's fine as GW doesn't sell those exact models.

 

Honestly on the 3d printing debate, my line is weither I can purchase said model from my FLGS or not. If not then it's ok, if yes then I buy from the FLGS and not the printer or use said such. It's also how i feel about those that print their own armies. If they come and play at the store without supporting it when they could have, then I take offense. As an old saying in my area, 'Amazon doesn't give you play space'. 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Focslain

[Jolemai]

Some folk are getting a little heated. Calm it down and keep it civil please

[Bryan Blaire]

Here’s the actual legal line goes on whether something is right or wrong - it’s wrong if it would lose a court case.

 

GW has already lost a court case regarding what they can trademark, what they have copyright to, etc.  Does GW use DCMA takedowns liberally? Sure.  Do content creators counter those and get their products they have designed/modified enough from GW base lines to suitably be legal put back up on sites the purvey goods of that type?  Yes.

 

GW knows they don’t have the rights to as much as they thought they did - do they push boundaries on this?  Yes.  Should people push back more?  Yes.

 

Make whatever moralistic arguments you want, it doesn’t matter.  Right and wrong for corporations, independent content creators, and salesmen alike are determined by what is legal to do in the location you reside.

 

This is the point that Jarl Calderson made that is 100% correct - 3D print “recasting” (as in an exact copy) of something that someone else holds current copyright for under the law in my jurisdiction is legally wrong.  It doesn’t matter whether the material is OOP, subject to bad service agreements, subject to bad pricing, etc. - if you are copying a physical product and selling it without the rights to do so from the originating content creator, according to the laws where I am, you are legally violating the IP law (violating the law is typically considered bad).

 

Whether the government of my area or the content creator do something about that is up to them, not me.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[SvenIronhand]

Legality is not morality.

[Dark Legionnare]

8 minutes ago, SvenIronhand said:

Legality is not morality.

Amen to that.

 

This thread's really blown up since I last checked in. This is a good mindset to put some of the more kinetic explosions to rest.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Dark Legionnare

[Bryan Blaire]

1 hour ago, SvenIronhand said:

Legality is not morality.

It’s the only empirical measure we have for this.  Someone else’s morality doesn’t apply to me, just like mine wouldn’t apply to anyone else, and we aren’t here to talk politics or religion, but the laws of the location I live in do directly apply to me.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[Emperor Ming]

1 hour ago, SvenIronhand said:

Legality is not morality.

GW business motto? 

[Sword Brother Adelard]

6 hours ago, SvenIronhand said:

Legality is not morality.

You likely have no idea the massive can of jurisprudential worms that statement opens...

 

There's a very long philosophical debate over exactly that statement. One side backs your statement, the other argues that a law that fails to adhere to a basic standard of morality isn't a valid law to start with. The latter position was what won the day at Nuremberg.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Sword Brother Adelard

[Bung]

I still havent got an answer to my Main question from the moraliity POV.

 

Recasting Bits yourself with moulds etc. for your own use was / is an accepted practise for decades and noone bats an eyes.

For example recasting some shoulder Pads for an SM chapter.

 

But if i use a 3d printer for exactly the same purpose people loose their :cuss: and call it piracy.

 

 

Personly i expect FW / GW conversion Sets to go the way of the Dodo die to 3d printing being more affordable.

 

[Halandaar]

37 minutes ago, Bung said:

I still havent got an answer to my Main question from the moraliity POV.

 

Recasting Bits yourself with moulds etc. for your own use was / is an accepted practise for decades and noone bats an eyes.

For example recasting some shoulder Pads for an SM chapter.

 

But if i use a 3d printer for exactly the same purpose people loose their and call it piracy.

 

I think you're trying to conflate two different things and assuming opposition to one is opposition to both. 

 

If you're making your own 3d models, 3d printing them yourself and using them on your own minis then absolutely I agree that is much the same as home recasting with more traditional molds, or photocopying pages out of your Codex (which is specifically allowed for personal use despite a Codex being a copyrighted publication). Even if you happened to be making direct reproductions of a physical GW product or actually scanning the mini as suggested in the opening post; as you say, you could do it with home casting so it's not fundamentally different to do it via 3d printing.

 

It becomes an issue when people make those 3d models available to the wider public; if you're downloading somebody else's STL from a browsable public website to print then that's no longer personal use; that's more like somebody scanning in a bunch of Codexes and then putting them up in a library for anybody to take as they please, or obtaining recast parts/minis from somebody who is copying them in their garage, and those absolutely do fall under the category of piracy.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Halandaar

[Bung]

12 hours ago, Halandaar said:

 

I think you're trying to conflate two different things and assuming opposition to one is opposition to both. 

 

If you're making your own 3d models, 3d printing them yourself and using them on your own minis then absolutely I agree that is much the same as home recasting with more traditional molds, or photocopying pages out of your Codex (which is specifically allowed for personal use despite a Codex being a copyrighted publication). Even if you happened to be making direct reproductions of a physical GW product or actually scanning the mini as suggested in the opening post; as you say, you could do it with home casting so it's not fundamentally different to do it via 3d printing.

 

It becomes an issue when people make those 3d models available to the wider public; if you're downloading somebody else's STL from a browsable public website to print then that's no longer personal use; that's more like somebody scanning in a bunch of Codexes and then putting them up in a library for anybody to take as they please, or obtaining recast parts/minis from somebody who is copying them in their garage, and those absolutely do fall under the category of piracy.

 

Thats my stance.

But then you have more than one Frater calling out everything 3d printed as piracy.

 

In the end of day i dont care about thsi opinion, but i question the reasoning behind this black and white pov.  

 

I dont care that much, i stated my reasons for keeping 3d printing more thatn once in this thread and its not the price GW / FW wants for their products.

[Halandaar]

23 hours ago, Vazzy said:

Edit: How do you anti piracy people feel about guys like Artel or Tortuga? 

 

Not sure why Artel are in this discussion to be honest. A lot of their products are inspired by Black Library characters which don't have miniatures anyway, but even the ones that are direct proxies for GW miniatures only bear a superficial resemblance to the official ones; there's no way you could mistake a Starborn Ancients Praetori for an Eldar Dire Avenger, for example.

 

Tortuga are admittedly way closer to the line and I could understand if somebody made the argument that they are simply reproducing GW designs, although again this is primarily to serve a gap in the market that GW isn't catering to. Like if GW produced a Tartaros kit in the same scale as the new Indomitus Terminators I'd buy those, but they haven't so if I want Tartaros suits that look in scale with the rest of my army, Tortuga offer a solution to that.

 

Similarly Tortuga's "Kolyan Crab" model serves a gap GW created when they retired their Carab Culln mini from production; it's not a direct copy of the Forgeworld mini but it is based on the artwork on the cover of Imperial Armour 9 so yes, it is still a GW design at source. Does that make it's existence objectively wrong? I don't know. I'm sure somebody more learned than me can tell us if producing a mini based on a piece of copyrighted artwork is legally valid or not. From my own morality point of view, GW apparently isn't interested in selling a Carab Culln model so I don't see who is harmed by the existence of an alternative.

[Xenith]

44 minutes ago, Halandaar said:

I don't know. I'm sure somebody more learned than me can tell us if producing a mini based on a piece of copyrighted artwork is legally valid or not.

 

I think the Chapterhouse/other case was that producing minis from background art or literature, that the owner of the copyright to that art/literature doesn't produce themselves is fair game. That's the reason GW reeled back to the no rules without models stance - if they made the rules for a special character, but didn't produce the model, a model for that character would be fair game to a 3rd party (at least in the US, I think).

 

I believe that this is one of the reasons GW has been revisiting old classics to show that they do make models for their old IP and art - the Zoats, Squats, Necromunda hangers on, heck even producing catachan models shows that the IP is still in use.