There have been some courageous people trying to keep our beloved big hats alive on Cults3D, but they often get removed due to copyright issues.
What are your thoughts on printing copies of miniatures that have been off the shelves for 30 years? Here is my ideas:
I. You can always spot the real originals. No confusion to that, i.e., no value loss for collectors.
II. There is no revenue loss for GW.
III. These .STL make the otherwise unattainable figures available, keeping this part of Warhammer World alive.
I wish GW would start selling .STL of their old old ranges⌠But I doubt it. I am historian by trade and it saddens me to see how little appreciation these amazing old sculpts get.
Also people like Fabelzel who has done a tremendous work on his range of chorfs. Kudos to you, my good sir.
So, whatâs the general consensus on ârecastsâ by printing? And I only mean figures long out of print. 20+ years.
For OOP (out of production) models Itâs a contentious issue for sure. Still, thereâs no denying that GW still holds the copyright to the models. We here on CDO are not GWâs copyright lawyers, but we also are not in the business of enabling copyright theft. Everyone is free to post pictures of their models and nobody can expect us to verify whether each and every model is an original, nor do we care. We will, however, remove links to STLs (or black market shops) if somebody proudly proclaims he has scanned/recast a clearly trademarked model, if only to protect ourselves.
Aye, I just wished they would change their business model of âselling scarcity and hypeâ to selling great games and providing people with the means to express themselves through their amazing figurines.
I started with GW in 1995 and I guess it wonât ever change.
My personal outlook on recasts/prints is mostly ambivalent. So long as models exist, recasts will exist. Original models are models, recast models are models.
In that way, I do not really care about people making recasts or having recasts. Iâm not trying to police the world for copyright law that lasts 95 years.
Some recasts are cool and exciting in a form of hobby of their own. For example I have seen people make metal casts of some classic monopose plastic minis (for their own amusement), I find that really cool.
The thing which I do very much care about though is clearly disclosing to any prospective buyer (or recipient of any kind) that a model is not an original (if such is the case). If a model is a recast, and John sells it to Dave without telling him that, thatâs unforgivable. Especially if he does so at the price an original would go for.
Even giving someone recast models for free without letting them know theyâre recast would be very negligent in my opinion, as to do so would set them up to rip-off someone else in the future.
Yes, what the others say.
I see no moral problem in people using them, openly or not, and this changes precisely when they are being distributed under false or misleading description into actual (not just legal) fraud.
I was a big time collector, possibly I have the âbestâ 3rd/4th ed CD collection in the worldâŚI donât know.
However, the attitude of some collectors is really anal; like the old âcollecting citadel miniaturesâ forum.
Of course, selling on something like recasts without letting the person know, or trying to portray recasts as originals are massive no nos.
Other than that, in my opinion anything is fair game. Resin printed figuresâŚIâd be happy to see any and allâŚwell as long as it doesnât devalue my collection of course!
Fans of the models should want other fans to be able to have the models even if it devalues their own collections. The models arenât available commercially, there are no indications that they ever will be again, the copyright holders donât even sell an equivalent alternative and have declared that they have no plans to do so - itâs very hard to say that it is morally wrong for someone to reproduce and/or make available to others the otherwise-unavailable art.
Thatâs different from the legal position though.
Respectfully disagree. You donât have a moral case to stand on in arguing with an artist about his art. Artist only wants to make a single piece of his art and have a completely unique piece? Nothing anyone can do or say about it.
Thatâs not really the case here though, these were widely available products. I think I would probably agree with you for the specific case of art that was always intentionally limited.
Doesnât matter. You donât have any inherent right to possess somebodyâs art even if it was once widely available.
Tbh Iâm a little puzzled weâre actually having this conversation. I mean I have pirated my fair share of music in my life, as probably most of us at a certain age have, but I would never stand on a hill and claim I had any right, be it moral or legal, to.
