NEW Oldhammer Sculptures

Status
Not open for further replies.
:shock: Wow, I wasn't ready for this! Absolutely gorgeous works!!
You have what I could almost call a catalogue, I'd love to see what you have and the availability ;), I'm PMing you :)
 
To answer some questions.

I ONLY intend to produce limited runs of any item that you see me sculpt. There will be no warehousing or stock-keeping. And the size of the runs will depend entirely on how many people pay into them. Some items might be available "to order" during limited times, but rarely.

Most importantly, I won't be taking requests. I already work as a sculptor full time, and you probably don't want to pay me my contractors rate. These are simply designs that I have always wanted to own for myself, but have no hope of seeing them manufactured by Games Workshop or anyone else. Direct competition for Games Workshop's business is not only unwise, but unappealing.

Right now, we are managing a list of buyers for a limited run of Battle Robot figurines. A design GW holds no rights to. That list is already closed, and the progress of production and shipping will be updated here.

And an announcement regarding Battle Robot can be made now; It will indeed be cast in METAL! It's final weight should top at around 2 oz.

Scores of delivery boxes are already being shipped in.

But people BETTER get serious and proactive about connecting with one another about any combined shipping choices. At a certain hour I will be calling for payments that include shipping charges, and dozens of last minute arrangements to renegotiate the bill will not be appreciated.
 
Thanks for the update Drew! I'm excited that this first model will be in metal...I'm not a fan of resin in general.

Cheers,

Blue
 
Thanks for the update Drew. I'm delighted to see the robot will be done in metal (although resin would have been fine).

Some of the other projects are really very exciting indeed. I love what you're producing :)
 
Well... at least I know who is getting all my money.

At least I have an excuse to forgo having kids for another couple years.
 
The shipping list has been compiled and calculated! People will begin receiving their cost and payment reminders in their Facebook inbox where this madness began. Those wishing to save on shipping with bundled packages should reply with details for me to scribble into the shipping list. I've chosen this coming Tuesday morning PST as the deadline for payments. After that, I take the money to the caster etc. and set the orders in motion.

UPDATE: It's important to recognize, that CURRENTLY, the way things are working out, package delliveries might be completed within a month. MUCH sooner than my personal delivery offer at BOYL in August.

SO, if you're seeing me at BOYL, I'd enjoy handing your robot to you, but I'm afraid you'd end up waiting much longer than others to get what you paid for.
 
EVERYONE should have their Shipping cost etc. in their Facebook Inbox now.

If you don't see your charge and instructions on payment there, check with me to see if you are supposed to be on the list right away. Within a week or so the payment and the prototype will be off to the casters.

Also, NOW is the time to let me know if you want me to include other peoples models in your package, or if you would like me to bring your model(s) with me to BOYL.
 
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 8-)
 
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 8-)

Anyone is welcome to PM me here at this forum.
But we may have to announce some limits to what is possible for me to share with other people here on Oldhammer Forum. Much of what is seen here may simply have to remain in my private collection for my own enjoyment. I am going to be asking some of our moderators to weigh in on this topic.

I have a peculiar problem; I'm a professional sculptor who's idea of having fun is to sculpt Oldhammer models. LOL

So hopefully, I can get a few warnings and/or sanctions to help govern what is done here, for the sake of the community.
 
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 and some vested interest in the safe navigation of this vessel and may be considered liable (although not as liable as others). I'm not going to draw any hard and fast lines here, but just point to things that set my alarm bells off and that I think can be improved if you were planning to sell these models.I'm not here to play internet tough-guy, but to cover your back.

WP_20150405_004_zpscumc9b2c.jpg


Looks like it contains actual Skaven parts? I think casting and selling this as it stands would be a massive no-no and GW would have every right to sue someone selling that - it's reproducing their IP (sculpt) without permission. However, I expect this is only a WIP and the final piece will contain no unoriginal parts.

1385993_624068564283386_2075179851_n_zpsxzeqbxl7.jpg

For me this is far too close to the drawing to be sold as it is. On first glance, it looks like a direct copy rather than an expression of the same idea. I'd change the pose, or better yet, make it a multipart kit with weapon options (perhaps claws, a minigun?), so the arms can be posed differently. IMHO The legs are already good from that point of view (and an improvement) but the angle of the head to torso looks the same, and so gives the impression that its a copy. Photographing it at the same angle doesn't help! I haven't checked by measuring, but most of the proportions look different, rather than copied off the drawing, and many of the details such as the chest pattern look completely unique.

There's a fine line between a physical copy of something (not good), a derivative work of it (not good) and something that is a unique expression of the same idea (good).

I might come back with some other bits later. Also, if you're advertising your product, I wouldn't use GWs artwork, because it's commercial use of art assets they've paid for, they won't be happy. However, I believe if we are just discussing the design, your sculpt, then showing GWs artwork is fine, but it is going to invite scrutiny.
 
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

Not a moderator, but I am a lawyer :lol: The deal really falls down to who owns the rights to the art. We learned in the Chapterhouse case that GW doesn't own the copyright to all of their old art (at least under US law, but I'd wager it would be found the same in the UK). Now, anything done by someone who is still employed by GW has probably re-assigned any art they've ever done since that case. So, for example, the Jes Goodwin space skaven-thingy is probably a bad idea to produce. For art work that's still owned by others, if you have permission from the owner, you should be fine. An example is the robot--Tony Ackland seems to have approved of your plan. But, until a court decides on that particular piece of art, it's unclear who owns the rights. But, as a matter of course, GW may be less likely to push the issue on those pieces and risk finding out the answer (but who knows, I definitely have no insights into their legal department).

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.

Finally, any thing that is based on an existing model, even if it is just scaled up, is probably also off limits. I'd have a hard time believe GW doesn't own those copyrights as I believe the sculptors were all employees and not contractors like the artists.
 
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.

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.

1538758_670288619661380_1554129958_n.jpg


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":1hiyplgn 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.
 
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.

1538758_670288619661380_1554129958_n.jpg


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.

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
 
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.

1538758_670288619661380_1554129958_n.jpg


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

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 :lol:
 
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 :lol:

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?


As to the forums liability, yes, if the people running the site are aware of illegal activity, then they can be liable if they do nothing about it, and ignorance of the law is not a defence. If someone started posting hate speech, various forms of pornography, or offered illegal drugs, the owners would be expected to deal with that. Site owners are not expected to police every post, but to be reasonably astute.

A few things could happen if a company took offence at any copyright infringement that took place. One is that a C&D is sent to the hosting company, and they'd pass that on to Steve, and Steve would be liable for actioning it. Having looked at GWs C&Ds on Chilling Effects, their legal department seem very diligent in dealing with specifics, so I would imagine a good company would ask for specific pages, threads, or images to be removed. Failure to comply in a timely fashion would make the site owners liable. Another is the at the hosting company might just take the site down, in fear of being liable themselves.

However, if a sculptor were 'advertising' his copyright infringing models for sale here (which isn't happening) and somebody believed those models infringed their rights and the owners of the site were both aware of sales taking place and knowingly allowed this, then the infringed company would be within their rights to pursue damages from the website owners, who effectively enabled the crime to occur. They could also persue damages from the seller, and demand they turn over any moulds, models and equipment. At least that is my understanding of the law.

So....

1) Is Drew advertising models for sale here? No, not as far as I can see (if I've missed it, let me know)
2) Are the models derivative works? Some are, yes. I believe so, but they are personal works, done for the purpose of study so covered by Fair Dealing and not being offered for sale. The photographs and artwork here are being shown in purpose of discussion.
3) Has illegal activity taken place (copyright infringement, passing off, sale or advertisement of counterfeit goods )? no.
 
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?

To an extent. Aside from strict liability laws (e.g., speed limits) all laws involve some grey area. But some or worse than others. Other areas of IP law, such as patent law are much easier for a lay person to have some idea of whether or not they are infringing. If someone accuses you of infringing their patent, you can look at the claims and say either yes, my product reads on this, or no, my product does not (there is some interpretation as to whether or not it meets the limitations, but those are usually definitional issues). In trademarks, it also much clearer. Is your mark being used in the same industry? Is it really similar? (also some wiggle room for interpretation, but still pretty straight forward).

Copyright law is much more open to debate. How much is similar enough to infringe? Check out the case where George Harrison was found to infringe on some old 50s pop song. Those songs are kinda similar. But they're not even close to 1 for 1 copies. The case over the recent song "Blurred Lines" is another good example. They're similar but not the same, and copyright infringement was found. But they're lots of other cases where no infringement was found with songs that are equally kinda similar. There judge/juries' personal opinions play so much of a role it's really (in my opinion) a bit unfair.

Now, I should note, I don't think there is necessarily a better way. It's just that I don't like the only way.
 
Oh noes, we're going to turn it into a philosophical debate!

ardyer":3htt7cm0 said:
Copyright law is much more open to debate. How much is similar enough to infringe?

Some parts of Copyright aren't really open to debate. A direct mechanical copy of something is a copy, and unless the use of it is covered by Fair Dealing (Fair Use in the US) then copyright is infringed. A PDF scan of a book, for example, or re-casting of a miniature, or some music sampling some other music. This is clear cut, there is no debate in the law (although whether the copyright owner deems it worth pursuing is a different issue).

Where a work is derived from another, then yes, things can get a bit less cut-and-dry. But lets be clear - something being similar to something else doesn't make it an infringement. Two photographs taken at the same time of day pointing at the same building under same weather conditions - very similar yet created totally independant of each other. Photographer A would need to prove that Photographer B had seen his work and subsequently copied it.

So let's take Drews amazing work done as a study in the form of a Human in Powered Armour, which is NOT FOR SALE by the way :)

1385361_624071967616379_1602817198_n.jpg


Sure, this looks similar to a lot of other representations of Humans in Powered Armour BUT is it a copy of any of them? Has a single drawing, or piece of art been copied by Drew when sculpting this? How do we determine if it has been copied? Well, we'd need the 'original' and we'd need to show physical correspondence between the 'original' and this sculpt. Or is this particular design so strongly associated with a certain brand of toy soldiers that the general forms are effectively some kind of unregistered Trademark?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top