A special thank you to CyberShadow for all of the work that has been put into providing answers and preserving this site. I think that getting an answer about what content is allowed in painting/gaming photos could (depending on the results) really help the morale of the membership. IMHO the painting and battle report threads are the best parts of this site, they impress and inspire creativity. I hope that the members will be allowed to proudly submit photos of their work regardless of the miniature's origin.

"Cool Mini or Not" displays painted miniatures that might step on corporate toes.

"Bols" literally advertises Chapterhouse models under the 40k thread even thought Chapterhouse are in court for IP infrigment.

I'm not saying that "Tac Com" is the place for such display, but perhaps a more neutral modeling site would suffice.

I think having a casting/CAD thread is an unnecessary attractor for negative attention and an invite to a stomping. Talking about manufacturing methods, mass production, etc., obviously trouble attracting. But if the general threads are just painted figs, and trademarked terms aren't used, sales aren't solicited, why would that be different then "Cool Mini or Not"?

I remember a few years back GW raised a stink over people showing 3rd party miniatures with GW miniatures and trademark terms in army build threads. Why did this line of complaint from GW die out? Was it foundless and had no basis in law? Or just so negative to be finally considered unreasonable? If people can't even paint proxies Tac Com might as well disable posting pictures altogether.

Perhaps a more neutral generalized painting only forum for small scale is needed, would be more appropriate (protected by artistic expression legal concepts), and would mitigate unnecessary controversy, negativity, etc.

At this point, and I want to be clear about this, policy on pictures in blogs, battle reports, suppliment work, army group shots, etc is entirely unchanged. No pictures have been taken down of these, and I don't intend to take any pictures down of these. I can only treat these on a case by case basis and so please continue to act as you have done in the past. I dont want to censor pictures or exclude any. I only ask that people are aware of the situation and the context and I reserve the right to remove anything I feel is an issue or contact the poster to ask it to be removed/replaced. At this point, it is only the sale and distribution that I am looking at.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

AFAIK in the UK even a straight up photo of a GW mini with nothing else in shot is a derivative work that GW can contest (might depend on how a GW mini is classed, if it is as sculpture then this is the case, I think. There is also exception to allow such photos for the purposes of review and critique). GW just allow you to show photos of their stuff, because they're nice like that …. I'm not sure about the 3d party combos, but a few months back GW had a mini on their blog clearly containing 3rd party pieces.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

The thing that hacks me off about this whole messed up situation is that people have repeatedly attempted to licence the IP for this very purpose and been knocked back by stupid GW policies.... it's fine for FF games (a separate licenced company) to make little plastic figures for Realm of Chaos and Horus Heresy, but apparently they don't let other companies produce GW miniatures.... which is it guys??

I am now determined to produce as many GW-alikes using parts from other models as possible......

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

As far as I know this is not entirely the case. If GW took the picture, then it belongs to them and people cant use it. If you buy a GW miniatures and paint it and take a photo, that photo belongs to you and you are able to put it online. This is not the same as publishing it (getting money for any work including the photo) and your use of the image can't impact on the IP or rights of GW. It is essentially being used 'for review purposes'.

Otherwise Levi would have a nightmare job trying to tell people not to wear their jeans in holiday photos online.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

My understanding is that wether or not you are making money from it does not mean you are not infringing on IP (woo negatives). If you take a photo of a GW piece it is a derivative work of their piece (again, depending on what it counts as, if it is sculpture). If i draw a doodle which is an original work, it is my intelectual property, if you photograph it that is a derivative work infringing my original. The paint job would need to be sufficient for it to be considered a new piece, although with a GW mini the whole point is they are sold to be painted. I doubt a project log thread on here counts as review – think this is intended to protect more academic stuff, eg it means you can write a comparative critique of oil painting styles without needing copy-write permission on the paintings, as you are not using them as the paintings in insolation as 'an art'.

With the Levi thing, of course they don't try, just like GW dont try to stop people posting pics of their minis online, it would destroy vast amounts of free advertising. Doesn't mean they couldn't try, they just choose not to. Didn't a company recently try to get a youtube video taken down because it had their car/bike engine sound in the background, which they considered to be their IP?
And if that sounds stupid look at this one (not directly relevant here, just a recent example of the bizarreness of how UK copywrite law can be applied): http://www.petapixel.com/2012/01/25/cre ... ringement/

I know nothing about the law, i'm probably completely wrong.

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

What about new blogs? For example, it's my intention once I have my Msc out of the way and I get more free time, to start a painting/hobby blog. I'm hoping it'll encourage me to get my act together and paint rather than buying new stuff all the time. It's one of the main reasons for me joining the board tbh. Lets say hypothetically that I have some forumware and would like to post up pics of it once I've made it all shiney and awesome looking, would you have a problem with this as it's new material? In other words, do only old previously submitted photos receive the amnesty?

Actually, from knowing a number of people at FFG, I can tell you that the initial license totally precluded the use of 3d ip representations and that was eventually changed to allowing the production of ip based tokens I.e. something that couldn't be used as a miniature in an existing game.

From GWs position, it's a lot safer to license a specific subset of rights to an existing company that intends to produce new material in markets GW doesn't and has a past track record of doing so than licensing to individuals with no track record into a market that's GWs primary income.

The fact that GW seemingly has no plans for Epic (or BFG, or any of it's other old games) might be irksom, but I think it's naive to expect them to hand over rights to anyone other than possibly another major wargamers company. Hell, it'd probably cost them more than any royalties they'd make just policing ip compliance.


For myself, I like the epic rule set a lot more than I do the 40k background, so using other mini ranges as proxies is no problem for me.

This is all probably true. Happily, this is largely academic as it is a minefield. However, I believe that most uses of images come under the fair use or derivative work license. I would assume that if you painted up a miniature, then it is counted as 'derivative' - that is that the design of the miniature belogs to GW, but the interpretation of the colours and paints is your own. I think that any company would have a hard time taking out an action in this kind of case, whether it is technically legal or not.



No. It would be strange of me to say that old pictures are OK and new ones are not, in absence of any legal advice or notice from GW to outline this. It is easier to have a policy which applies to the boards as a whole.

In reviewing this entire thread and issue, I am coming to two comclusions:

1. The demonstration, sale and distribution of IP infringing miniatures (although this could theoretically also apply to art, text, etc) will not happen on this site or these boards. I will put in place clearer regulations, police them better and set up the 'miniatures catalogue'. I do intend to promote the sculpting, casting and creation of miniatures here (if there is anyone left still posting who does it!) but within the legal limits. I would love these boards to be a showcase for hobby sculpting and casting, with a selection of truly unique (in every sence of the word) miniatures which enthusiasts can buy and include in their armies.

2. I cannot make judgement on past pictures or future photos of whether the miniatures in your collection are your own scratch built creations, and I cannot simply disallow the use of anything not produced and bought directly and which is unmodified or converted, on a wargaming hobby site. Therefore, I will rely on the community to make their own judgements and - in absence of any official or outside advice - allow pictures as they have happened in the past.

2a. Caveat: Anything considered as 'promotion' of IP infringing miniatures is not allowed. For example, saying 'these are recasts and I got them from this guy on this site.....'. While this abides by the regulations of not permitting the sale of IP infringing miniatures on this site, it goes against the spirit of the regulation (I was wondering how long it woudl take to come down to 'rules as written v rules as intended'!) and would qualify as promotion and is therefore also not permitted.

The difficulty is that each case is unique and it is difficult to come up with a more specific ruling than this. So, if you have any doubt, drop a PM to myself (or one of the mod team) to double check.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

Yep I agree they wouldn't get anywhere due toa combination of fair use + they have allowed it for years anyway. I wonder what would happen if they decided that bad paint jobs negatively altered their sales and was costing them money though? e.g., We at GW spend a lot of money employing a team of top painters to showcase our hard work and drive sales, Timmy (8, Cheadle) posting his magnolia emulsion and ketchup painted space marine photos online devalues this. They probably would not get anywhere, but just a thought

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

Apoc, I'm no more an expert than you, but I think you're missing an important piece of the puzzle - the paintjob.

As I undarstand it (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer), there are three copyrights at stake in a picture of a painted model: the model itself, the paintjob, and the photograph.

The painting adds a distinct artistic expression not inherent in the model. This means that in effect the painted model is 'inspired' by the unpainted model. The photograph translates a 3D model into a 2D medium - this (as I understand it) means substantial similarity is hard to prove - after all, the picture cannot show a large part of the surface of the model, thus making it hard to mistake one for the other or claim the picture is a 'copy' of the original. This is equally true of a picture of an unpainted model, by the way.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Thanks CS, much clearer.



I lol'd at that...

Another point/distinction here, derivative work has a set meaning and legal implication i think. It does not just mean inspired by or based on, it would mean that the original copywrite/IP holder of the work from which yours derives owns your derivative work based on it. So the interpretation of paints and colours might 'be your own', but if it is judged to be a derivative work then GW own the IP on it, the painter would not.
Edit: I'm wrong

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs