Otto1485":29xoa3gg said:Drew,
For those of us who don't, for one reason or another, do Facebook, how do we contact you??
I would like to get hold of some casts of your models.
All the best
Otto![]()
Zhu Bajie":1l1dk982 said:Hey Drew. Let me start off by saying that I thnk your vision of the Rogue Trader universe is brilliant.
Also I'm not a moderator, and I'm not a lawyer, but I have opinions
ardyer":1hiyplgn said:As far as Zhu's concern about similarity, the same pose or a different pose probably makes no legal different if everything else is identical...it's still a derivative work.
.ardyer":1hiyplgn said:So, for example, the Jes Goodwin space skaven-thingy is probably a bad idea to produce.
Zhu Bajie":2olh74hb said:ardyer":2olh74hb said:As far as Zhu's concern about similarity, the same pose or a different pose probably makes no legal different if everything else is identical...it's still a derivative work.
Sure, and looking at the Heavy Powered Armour, not everything is identical, to my eye at least (and it is not my eye that counts, it's that of GWs legal department in the first instance and a Judge, if it comes to it). Similar, but not identical, but for me It's the composition of the piece that pushes it over the edge. However, if other people think it goes over the edge regardless, then I'll defer to the most cautious position.
![]()
Regards basing things on artwork, we know from the artists and Chapterhouse case that Russ Nicholson and Gary Chalk works were not bought outright, and so their work belongs to them. However, I believe Tony Ackland was in full time employment with Citadel, so in English law, his drawings would have been 'work for hire' and the copyright would have been owned by the company, unless his contract explicitly said otherwise. Just asking Tony if he was full time at the studio or otherwise employed or freelancing at the time he drew thing X would go some way to clarifying that situation (if he's already done so, it would be good to have that out in the open).
The question for Drew is whether he sees the risk/reward equation of finding out whether this is the case enough to balance in his favour.
The question for the moderators (and site owners) is whether in allowing Drew to advertise these models for sale here, should he wish to do so, runs the risk of GW sending C&Ds and getting us shut down.
As far as I can see, right now, the models are not up for sale. There are no prices, Drews personal models are up for discussion, as they also have been on his Satyr Studios Facebook Page for since last year, and Drew has been finishing off some communications with people he'd had on The Oldhammer Community Facebook Group, whatever they were about, and seeing if people liked this stuff.
.ardyer":2olh74hb said:So, for example, the Jes Goodwin space skaven-thingy is probably a bad idea to produce.
Definitely. But you can't copyright "a short guy with an antique rifle and a gas mask with a fur coat on" and as long as it is that, not 'sculpt done off a jes goodwin drawing' then all is well. It's obviously a WIP at the moment, and be interesting to see where it goes.
Drew Williams":19atio4u said:Zhu Bajie":19atio4u said:ardyer":19atio4u said:As far as Zhu's concern about similarity, the same pose or a different pose probably makes no legal different if everything else is identical...it's still a derivative work.
Sure, and looking at the Heavy Powered Armour, not everything is identical, to my eye at least (and it is not my eye that counts, it's that of GWs legal department in the first instance and a Judge, if it comes to it). Similar, but not identical, but for me It's the composition of the piece that pushes it over the edge. However, if other people think it goes over the edge regardless, then I'll defer to the most cautious position.
![]()
Regards basing things on artwork, we know from the artists and Chapterhouse case that Russ Nicholson and Gary Chalk works were not bought outright, and so their work belongs to them. However, I believe Tony Ackland was in full time employment with Citadel, so in English law, his drawings would have been 'work for hire' and the copyright would have been owned by the company, unless his contract explicitly said otherwise. Just asking Tony if he was full time at the studio or otherwise employed or freelancing at the time he drew thing X would go some way to clarifying that situation (if he's already done so, it would be good to have that out in the open).
The question for Drew is whether he sees the risk/reward equation of finding out whether this is the case enough to balance in his favour.
The question for the moderators (and site owners) is whether in allowing Drew to advertise these models for sale here, should he wish to do so, runs the risk of GW sending C&Ds and getting us shut down.
As far as I can see, right now, the models are not up for sale. There are no prices, Drews personal models are up for discussion, as they also have been on his Satyr Studios Facebook Page for since last year, and Drew has been finishing off some communications with people he'd had on The Oldhammer Community Facebook Group, whatever they were about, and seeing if people liked this stuff.
.ardyer":19atio4u said:So, for example, the Jes Goodwin space skaven-thingy is probably a bad idea to produce.
Definitely. But you can't copyright "a short guy with an antique rifle and a gas mask with a fur coat on" and as long as it is that, not 'sculpt done off a jes goodwin drawing' then all is well. It's obviously a WIP at the moment, and be interesting to see where it goes.
Thanks Guys. Good comments and valuable reading. Many points I've considered in the past myself.
My chiefest concern is the security of the Oldhammer forums. A C&D is secondary for me.
Currently, most of these items are on hold until a moderator weighs in. Even then, I might not go forward.
The "dangerous alien" is not intended for reproduction. That particular conversion seen there is destined for normal paint and play (which is why his priority level is so low). But the notion of perfecting an original green derived from the old Goodwin art is still being considered. The "dangerous alien" is a cult personality in RT lore, and one that has not actually been brought forward in GW products, much as the Battle Robot Tony illustrated.
I
ardyer":vqyx0kx8 said:Drew, first I want to apologize, Zhu and I like to discuss copyright law. No one else does
Now, to Zhu's point about not everything in the armor being the same, that is the (in my opinion) fundamental flaw of copyright law. Is it enough to be a new work? We don't know until a judge determines it. And even then, two judges could very easily determine differently. In a very copyright-friendly jurisdiction, like California, it will take a lot more to be considered different than a jurisdiction where copyright never comes up, like say Idaho. I can't speak to the copyright friendliness of the UK, unfortunately.
I will add that GW is unlikely to be able to do anything about personal sculpts for your own personal use. They've been encouraging that so long that their own words would probably hurt their case enough that it's not worth attempting.
As far as the security of the forum, if the C&D is sent under US law, the DMCA gives pretty good protection to the forums. Zhu might be better capable of answer whether or not the UK has any equivalent shield law for web sites.
Now I should add that my personal feeling is I WANT THESE MODELS!!!!!!!!! So interpret everything I say through those feelings![]()
Zhu Bajie":2c7iil3p said:To be fair Ardyer, I think your problem with copyright law is the fundamental epistemological problem involved in all law. And, in an idea world, that what our Legal systems are there to deal with, obviously no system is perfect, but it's the best we can do, amiright?
ardyer":3htt7cm0 said:Copyright law is much more open to debate. How much is similar enough to infringe?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.