3D"'print-a-like" shut down by GW

[prowla]

Legally, this depends a lot on how close the designs are to GW's actual models. If they were actual copies (and the one in the Wired article appears to be), then that's obvious copyright infringement and GW has every right to issue C&Ds, file suit and so on. If the guy is making designs which are just "in the style of", then they don't have a leg to stand on. You can't copyright a style, only specific elements of it.

+1. You're free to design your own tank that has WW1-scifi-gothic feel going on, and sell it even if it would by some strange coincidence fit into 40k like a glove. However, you cannot make direct copies of existing products, or sell them as "Leman Russ Tank" if the name is trademarked by GW in the realm of miniature games.

In the area of industrial design, there a kazillion pieces of furniture sold in every store that are pretty straightforward knock-offs from a "design classic". For example, you probably can see a chair that looks pretty much like this in any furniture store today. It's the Ant Chair, original design by Arne Jacobsen - original products cost 300 euros, chinese copies "inspired by it" are €30.



Cease and desist orders are typical first measures. They're often enough to scare individuals stopping what they are doing, even though they only say that "We see what you're doing and don't like it, kid!".

[hekatonkheire]

I keep coming back to this though - the dreadnought and Leman Russ models were designed by nice, talented people who worked really damn hard on those designs. And they may have taken inspiration from any number of resources, but they contributed an enormous amount themselves - to the extent that the dreadnought and Leman Russ designs are works of unambiguous creativity. So maybe the Games Workshop designers copied the idea of space marines straight out of Heinlein or whatever, but they undeniably contributed an enormous amount of their own work as well: I don't remember reading about chaplains or melta guns or servitors or purity seals in Starship Troopers. Ok, so you made a 3d model of a space marine dreadnought or worse, just scanned it in. What did you actually contribute yourself? And if you didn't contribute anything, what is there then that you own that you're ethically in a position to even distribute?

All the people complaining seem to be people who've just made copies of things and are trying to either sell them themselves or give them away for free. The people who've put the work in and have actually made their own creative contributions seem to suddenly see things in an entirely different light. Specifically, a why-do-I-even-bother-if-people-are-going-to-just-rip-me-off light.

[yabbadabba]

While that might sound like an underhanded way of doing things - the entire process is underhanded. Between lawyers sending out C&D letters to scare compliance to the manner in which IP holders have lobbied to extend their copyrights on their cash cows well beyond their original intended periods. The big companies were the ones who wrote the laws (with lawyers and politicians who were bought and paid for). You would just be playing by their own rules.

If I design something as an individual or as part of a company, then why should I not keep ownership of that thing for as long as I decide?

[Ebon]

I noted the image in the Wired article was uncaptioned. That was not necessarily his tank alike.

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:18205

The above link points to a dread copy on Thingiverse which is still up. I found it through the ninja-like method of going to thingiverse and typing 'Warhammer' into the search field. One of the first comments is from the guy who's dread generated the DMCA notice, saying how similar it is to his version.

edit: here's an image from thingiverse - fascinating stuff:
Attachment 141998

Those look close enough to by copyright infringement, to my eye.

[iamfanboy]

I noted the image in the Wired article was uncaptioned. That was not necessarily his tank alike.

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:18205

The above link points to a dread copy on Thingiverse which is still up. I found it through the ninja-like method of going to thingiverse and typing 'Warhammer' into the search field. One of the first comments is from the guy who's dread generated the DMCA notice, saying how similar it is to his version.

edit: here's an image from thingiverse - fascinating stuff:
Attachment 141998

Uh, yeah, that is definitely WAYYYYY too close. I have no sympathy for the guy, and Thingiverse did the right thing by taking it down.

[Ebon]

If I design something as an individual or as part of a company, then why should I not keep ownership of that thing for as long as I decide?

Three reasons:
1) Because that gives you an effective monopoly over that thing and monopolies are almost (not always but almost) bad for the consumer.
2) Because designs almost always build on other designs and, in turn, inspire others and at some point, it simply becomes impractical to stop and try sorting out who owns what.
3) The big media companies who effectively wrote the copyright laws very often behaved atrociously to the actual creators. To use a classic example, you wouldn't believe the amount of writers and artists who created household name superheroes but died in poverty because they were working under "work for hire" agreements which gave them exactly zero stake in the character (and no, you can't fall back on the "they signed it of their own free will" defence since there were no other kinds of contracts in comics then). Look up the creators of names like Superman, Batman, Captain America and so on and you'll find an awful lot of the creators were paid a pittance and received no royalties of any kind. The only reason Stan Lee was an exception was because he was very canny at self-promotion.

[yabbadabba]

Three reasons:1) Because that gives you an effective monopoly over that thing and monopolies are almost (not always but almost) bad for the consumer.

This is only bad for essential items, many of which are not covered by such laws. The customer always get the choice to say no.

2) Because designs almost always build on other designs and, in turn, inspire others and at some point, it simply becomes impractical to stop and try sorting out who owns what.

That is something for the lawyers and politicians to sort out, none the less if I invent something and I can prove its sufficiently different enough to be mine, then I should have control over it until I choose to relinquish that control.

3) The big media companies who effectively wrote the copyright laws very often behaved atrociously to the actual creators. To use a classic example, you wouldn't believe the amount of writers and artists who created household name superheroes but died in poverty because they were working under "work for hire" agreements which gave them exactly zero stake in the character (and no, you can't fall back on the "they signed it of their own free will" defence since there were no other kinds of contracts in comics then). Look up the creators of names like Superman, Batman, Captain America and so on and you'll find an awful lot of the creators were paid a pittance and received no royalties of any kind. The only reason Stan Lee was an exception was because he was very canny at self-promotion.

That is media and art. What about the other industries?

[Hendarion]

copyright infringement on what?
You can't copyright the look and feel of a fictional universe, only specific components OF that fictional universe;

Uh, yeah, that is definitely WAYYYYY too close. I have no sympathy for the guy, and Thingiverse did the right thing by taking it down.

See? Only components OF that universe can be copied. Like Leman Russ, Dreadnoughts and Sentinels.

[The bearded one]

edit: here's an image from thingiverse - fascinating stuff:
Attachment 141998

Does that dread actually have a blood angel blood-drop symbol?

[Col. Tartleton]

I don't know why people feel the need to rip off the models. If you're going to go through the trouble and borrow on their IP, at least make something better. Don't make a cheaper knock off.

He should have gone the extra mile and made a true scale posable high detail version different by means of more realistic. Then they'd have less ground.

Like I'd do stuff in either 6, 15, or 54mm.

Crank up the Grimdark to 11, draw upon various concept arts, add some extra gothic cyberpunk, profit.

Even if it was totally legal, making knock offs of someone else's designs might be ok on the manufacturing end, but it's not cool on the design end. I mean honestly, being compared to the Chinese is not something I would look forward to.

[Trasvi]

If I design something as an individual or as part of a company, then why should I not keep ownership of that thing for as long as I decide?

I'm sure you already know this, but the purpose of modern copyright/patent law is to provide incentive to invest the time and money to create original inventions. You are rewarded by receiving an artificial monopoly for a period of time to let you recoup and profit off your time, money, effort and ingenuity. If the time period is too short, this stifles innovation as there is no profit in it. If the time period is too long, this stifles innovation as once you create something, there is little incentive to create something else; and it prevents others from improving upon your designs.
In the realm of patents, consider Kodak who to a large extent created digital photography. However they did not do anything with their patents for nearly 20 years, their initial offerings were sub-par - and at that point when the patents expired their competitors stepped in, innovated and outperformed; and now every man and his dog has a digital camera. Imagine if Kodak were able to keep their patents on digital photography indefinitely (infinitely?).

We are living in an age where we refer to artists and authors as 'content creators'. Anyone can produce from their own basement and market to the world, and the cost of doing so is essentially free. Because of the volume, ease and low cost of content creation I firmly believe that copyright laws in their current form are outdated, and at the very least the duration needs to be drastically shortened by at least half.

[yabbadabba]

I'm sure you already know this, but the purpose of modern copyright/patent law is to provide incentive to invest the time and money to create original inventions. You are rewarded by receiving an artificial monopoly for a period of time to let you recoup and profit off your time, money, effort and ingenuity. If the time period is too short, this stifles innovation as there is no profit in it. If the time period is too long, this stifles innovation as once you create something, there is little incentive to create something else; and it prevents others from improving upon your designs.
In the realm of patents, consider Kodak who to a large extent created digital photography. However they did not do anything with their patents for nearly 20 years, their initial offerings were sub-par - and at that point when the patents expired their competitors stepped in, innovated and outperformed; and now every man and his dog has a digital camera. Imagine if Kodak were able to keep their patents on digital photography indefinitely (infinitely?).

We are living in an age where we refer to artists and authors as 'content creators'. Anyone can produce from their own basement and market to the world, and the cost of doing so is essentially free. Because of the volume, ease and low cost of content creation I firmly believe that copyright laws in their current form are outdated, and at the very least the duration needs to be drastically shortened by at least half.

In essence, the copyright laws are more about indulging in capitalist and consumerist needs than any real thought for the creators. It seems to me that, in essence, the consumer is n.o.1 and there is little thought to anything else.

Money, money, money .......

[Col. Tartleton]

The problem is that these don't resemble GW products, they're all but identical. You don't go "Oh that looks like a Sentinel" you go "Oh a Sentinel".

It's too close to existing models.

If you own the rights to a book, you own the rights to a book. I don't want to see A Christmas Carol with "By John Smith" on the cover. Those are Charles Dickens' words, not John Smith's. But you don't complain if something writes A Christmas Story by John Smith which is a parody or pastiche. Or A Christmas Carol by John Smith which has the same name but is different.

[shelfunit.]

The model from the pic are too close to the originals - but that in itself shows how far 3d printing has come - they look great.

[baphomael]

The problem is that these don't resemble GW products, they're all but identical. You don't go "Oh that looks like a Sentinel" you go "Oh a Sentinel".

It's too close to existing models.

If you own the rights to a book, you own the rights to a book. I don't want to see A Christmas Carol with "By John Smith" on the cover. Those are Charles Dickens' words, not John Smith's. But you don't complain if something writes A Christmas Story by John Smith which is a parody or pastiche. Or A Christmas Carol by John Smith which has the same name but is different.

Brings to mind the film Nosferatu. Unashamedly rips off Dracula - identical save for a few name changes. Nevertheless, it is still a brilliant and ironic example of early cinema - a pioneering piece of art in its own right.

[The bearded one]

Brings to mind the film Nosferatu. Unashamedly rips off Dracula - identical save for a few name changes. Nevertheless, it is still a brilliant and ironic example of early cinema - a pioneering piece of art in its own right.

If it's brilliant and innovating, it's allowed

[de Selby]

If you own the rights to a book, you own the rights to a book. I don't want to see A Christmas Carol with "By John Smith" on the cover. Those are Charles Dickens' words, not John Smith's. But you don't complain if something writes A Christmas Story by John Smith which is a parody or pastiche. Or A Christmas Carol by John Smith which has the same name but is different.

A Christmas Carol is in the public domain (ie. Dickens wrote it so long ago that no-one, not even an immortal corporation, has special rights to his work). You're free to start your own business manufacturing and selling public domain books. Not just parodies but any modified or un-modified versions of the text are allowed. You could claim that you wrote it yourself, but as far as I know this would just be a lie rather than any kind of crime, unless you then tried to stop other people making free use of Dickens' text

Thank God. People deserve to be rewarded for their work but can you imagine what the world would be like if every idea and story ever invented still belonged to some business interest somewhere and you had to pay them every time you made use of it? Paying the Ugg corporation to license every use of a wheel or a knock-knock joke?

[Hendarion]

The model from the pic are too close to the originals - but that in itself shows how far 3d printing has come - they look great.

Imo the Dreadnought looks bad, grainy and very unsmooth. Same probably will the finer (or missing) details.

[Sean_OBrien]

A Christmas Carol is in the public domain (ie. Dickens wrote it so long ago that no-one, not even an immortal corporation, has special rights to his work). You're free to start your own business manufacturing and selling public domain books. Not just parodies but any modified or un-modified versions of the text are allowed. You could claim that you wrote it yourself, but as far as I know this would just be a lie rather than any kind of crime, unless you then tried to stop other people making free use of Dickens' text

Thank God. People deserve to be rewarded for their work but can you imagine what the world would be like if every idea and story ever invented still belonged to some business interest somewhere and you had to pay them every time you made use of it? Paying the Ugg corporation to license every use of a wheel or a knock-knock joke?

That sort of goes to the point which I made regarding copyright terms.

Christmas Carol and many other great works (literary or otherwise) are in the public domain. Having stuff in the public domain allows other authors to add to those originals and create new works in a meaningful way. Look at all the different variations of things like the Christmas Carol which have been created (some better than others - but creative works are highly subjective in their worth). They can not claim to have created THE Christmas Carol by removing Dickens from the author slot and reprinting them - but they can adapt it to create movies like Scrooged.

At the current rate of copyright extensions, nothing which has been created in the past 75 years or so (forget the exact year it started, might even be older still) will ever enter the public domain. Industry groups and large corporations will push politicians to extend the renewals long past their original intent. When the Sonny Bono Act was past recently, one of the politicians who was pushing it actually said that if she could - she would make the copyright term "Forever minus one day - since Forever would be unconstitutional". That spits in the face of the original intent and the value of a robust public domain.

I would be very happy if the actual copyright term was something like 10 years - after which point it moves to the public domain. That would both help to foster innovation (allow young authors to cut their teeth writing fan fiction without fear of the C&D or worse) as well as provide motivation for corporations and professional artists to actually produce new work that has value to the consumer. As it is, if you were to sing "Happy Birthday" in a public restraunt - you could very well have a lawyer at your door step serving you with papers because you haven't paid the royalties on the public performance of a song which is nearly 100 years old and the original authors of the song have been dead for over 65 years. That in my not so humble opinion is retarded.

[the anti santa]

edit: here's an image from thingiverse - fascinating stuff:
Attachment 141998

So those are the models produced by the files he uploaded?
If so then the this part of the opening paragraph of that article is very misleading.

so Valenty decided to design a couple of his own Warhammer-style figurines: a two-legged war mecha and a tank.

Only if design somehow means copy as that is clearly the leman russ battle tank and sentinel. It gives the impression that he created a couple of vehicles that were his own creation but were of the same sort of style as those used by the 40K tanks. Which plenty of companies do perfectly legally by calling them sci fi tanks or walkers.

He has taken the existing models and done his best to copy them exactly, the article would have been much informative if they had shown the GW models besides his creations. It would also have shown how good the technology is getting, his models are pretty good in isolation but still look very crude compared to the originals.