Copyright, parts re-use and a proposal?

[gordy]

Orginial Discussion started here:
http://www.planetfigure.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38893

Today, copyright is the rule.

As discussed in another thread, the topic of copyright of figure accessories, weapons, etc. (here within referred to as "parts" in this discussion) was brought up and a discussion of new ways to address the issue of scales and quality have been raised. Reusing of an incorrect or out of scale part from a single producer or the reuse of the same part by several producers or scratchbuilders has been a trend that once in circulation is easy to recognize. How many times have we seen the same square toed civil war era boots reused, or poorly shaped WWII helmet?

This raises an interesting idea and concept: offering a copyright-free, open-licsenced part that is free for scratchbuilders, sculptors and producers to use and reuse. The license requires that changes and modifications to the part still retain the open license.

Here is an example:

Artist sculpts/scratchbuilds a part and sells the part to Company X

Company X uses the part with figures and kits

Company Y and Company Z are free to recast part, reuse part, modify part, etc but whatever changes Company Y and Company Z make to the part do so with the understanding that the CopyLeft license goes with the part.

From the wikipedia article:

"an author may give every person who receives a copy of a work permission to reproduce, adapt or distribute it and require that any resulting copies or adaptations are also bound by the same licensing agreement."

Parts and pieces labeled Copyleft or have free art license would be mutually accepted by the artist and producer.

The concept is common is use of published works, art and computer software. This proposal is to think about an open model of fair use (copyleft, FAL) for reusable parts, that can be circulated without legal or ethical consequences.

Discussion and ideas are open to the floor

 

[stu]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

I kind of like this idea.

If something ie a weopen or helmet or water bottle has been sculpted and produced correctly, its correct, its a no brainer. take Mike Goods 1/24 motorcyclist, I would love to have that helmet and kar 98 to thrash out a few figgies, but there in lies the problem. the owner wouldnt like it as it affects sales etc.

I dont personally dont mind sharing stuff esp if I can barter with the recipient and credit is given where its due

Good thread

Stu

 

[renarts]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

It sounds like a great idea. But someone, somewhere deserves compensation. Mainly because it becomes a case of the parties down the line all stand to make an income of some sort as a result of using the derivitive work.
i.e. company A makes the copyleft piece.
company B uses it and modifies it to sell on their piece
company C uses the modified piece again (now x number of generations from original) and further modifies it.
What determines that enough generations or derivative works have changed enough to make it unrecognizable from the progenitor? And when does the chain break?

Even copyright free houses have a means of income regarding their art. Be it via advertising or subscription. How do you establish that to create incentive?

 

[Fernando Ruiz]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

I agree. The company who makes the effort of creating from scratch the piece needs some kind of compensation. If someone creates some fully original and good quality WWII german equipment and weapons sets in 75mm, although it would be GREAT news, he wouldn't like that his work would be used for production with commercial gains by some guys who just decided that now it's easier to produce some panzergrenadiers in an scale that every day gains more adepts.

There's lots of recasts and reuse of previously done parts but, in the other hand, there's a lot of miniatures yet to be done because the sculptor doesn't want to spend the extra time required to do some special equipment parts or its too expensive to do so for the company.

That makes me wonder, could there be a market for a company specialized in creating that kind of accurate pieces in several scales for use to BOTH the modeller and model companies? I'm sure that kind of company could arrange some agreement with other miniatures companies to let them use its parts and even creating some others by request. That way, for a fee, the miniatures companies can have legal accurate parts so they just have to worry about the pose, theme and other more artistic features of the miniature. The parts company can offer legally the same piece to several miniature companies and the modellers, so they can charge a competitive fee that doesn't get too expensive for small companies. I think everybody gains that way.

Imagine the ranges such company could have... From resin weapons to photoetched unit patches for larger scales. Helmets, boots, tools, edged weapons, badges. One idea come to my mind: computer 3D design and a 3D printer.

Regards
FeR

 

[FigureLover]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

What about the weapons sets that Andrea sell and Hornet heads etc, dont they fall under this banner? They sell to us for the use to sculpt and modify, I'm not sure if they still hold a copyrite for a sculptor to then sell this on again. Not sure.
Also, of those talking about a company selling parts and then another company selling these parts again either modified or not, generations down the track, wouldn't there be an issue with shrinkage as you get a bit of shrinkage every time you cast something, and then also clean up again. This making it out of scale and less detailed than buying the original from the original company. So what would the point be??
Just some points for thought
Ben

 

[gordy]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

It sounds like a great idea. But someone, somewhere deserves compensation. Mainly because it becomes a case of the parties down the line all stand to make an income of some sort as a result of using the derivitive work.

Who is missing out on the compensation ? Everyone down the line receives compensation.

• The original sculptor receives his compensation from the original producer.
  
• Company A who uses it receives compensation (with the sale of the part with a figure / kit)
  
• Company (B,C,D) who uses it receives compensation (with the sale of the part modified or not with a figure / kit)

i.e. company A makes the copyleft piece.
company B uses it and modifies it to sell on their piece
company C uses the modified piece again (now x number of generations from original) and further modifies it.
What determines that enough generations or derivative works have changed enough to make it unrecognizable from the progenitor? And when does the chain break?

Three or thirty generations, it does not matter, the open license does not break, the smallest bit of original constitutes perpetuation of the license. As it stands today, we don't have a clear cut means to make those determinations any, it's a grey area, the open license would eliminate that and remove the stigma of plagiarizing parts.

Even copyright free houses have a means of income regarding their art. Be it via advertising or subscription. How do you establish that to create incentive?

Same as above, the income is generated by the sale of the part with the kit/figure.

The notion that sales would be hurt or someone would miss out on compensation continues to be perpetuated, sculptors are not receiving royalties for pieces nor are sculptors licensing their masters to producers for numbered castings. (Now that would be interesting! Licensing a master to company A for 300 limited copies and then later again to Company B for another 300 copies, but that's a whole other topic!)

 

[gordy]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

What about the weapons sets that Andrea sell and Hornet heads etc, dont they fall under this banner? They sell to us for the use to sculpt and modify, I'm not sure if they still hold a copyrite for a sculptor to then sell this on again. Not sure.

You are hearing and seeing it discussed first here, open license, creative commons or copyleft to date has never been applied to commercial parts that I'm aware of.

I don't know what license Andrea sold those accessories under.
Hornet heads certainly not. Hornet has a high reputation for cracking down on copyright.

Also, of those talking about a company selling parts and then another company selling these parts again either modified or not, generations down the track, wouldn't there be an issue with shrinkage as you get a bit of shrinkage every time you cast something, and then also clean up again. This making it out of scale and less detailed than buying the original from the original company. So what would the point be??
Just some points for thought
Ben

It would have to be quite a few generations, I would presume most producers use the "master > master mould > production mould" method. That would eliminate those issues.

 

[gordy]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

That makes me wonder, could there be a market for a company specialized in creating that kind of accurate pieces in several scales for use to BOTH the modeller and model companies? I'm sure that kind of company could arrange some agreement with other miniatures companies to let them use its parts and even creating some others by request. That way, for a fee, the miniatures companies can have legal accurate parts so they just have to worry about the pose, theme and other more artistic features of the miniature. The parts company can offer legally the same piece to several miniature companies and the modellers, so they can charge a competitive fee that doesn't get too expensive for small companies. I think everybody gains that way.

Imagine the ranges such company could have... From resin weapons to photoetched unit patches for larger scales. Helmets, boots, tools, edged weapons, badges.

Yes, that would be interesting! Similar to a business to business supplier.

One idea come to my mind: computer 3D design and a 3D printer.

Regards
FeR

That is without a doubt coming, then it will be a matter of downloading a part or a figure. There are already royalty free 3D models in huge numbers!

Also. we see how downloading has affected the music industry!

 

[T50]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

Guys,

Talking about using parts from other manufacturer,
how about these?

http://www.hfmodeling.com/modules.p...le=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=172018&page=1

This is a Polish company called RB Models.
They usually make AFV detail stuff.
It sucks to be messed with like this... to say the very least.

 

[gordy]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

Guys,

Talking about using parts from other manufacturer,
how about these?

http://www.hfmodeling.com/modules.p...le=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=172018&page=1

This is a Polish company called RB Models.
They usually make AFV detail stuff.
It sucks to be messed with like this... to say the very least.

That is most unfortunate Taesung, thank you for bringing that to my attention earlier. I removed the offending post as quickly as I could.

edit: Rudi caught and edited the others -

 

[T50]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

You sure did! Thanks!

 

[JasonB]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

Well, heres my (probably unpopular)take on it. I have never understood why there is such an uproar when a sculptor uses preexisting equipment as part of their figure, instead of scratching it themselves. If there is a Kar98 in existence that fits the bill, why would scratching one that will end up being nearly identical make a difference? Same with water bottles, boots, what have you. Is the original sculptor of figure or the company losing any money? No. Would it make that companies figure really that much better if they had scratched their own instead of using a pre-existing one? I doubt it. What if I improve on the one I am using from another company? I have a 1/16th Marine I am working on right now. The legs are slightly modified from a Verlinden kit. The right and left arms are from 2 other kits. The upper body is a scratchbuild. The head is a Warriors head with a sculpted neck, wearing an S&T helmet. He carries a New Order Models M1 Garand (sweet!), Warriors BAR mag pouches, S&T canteens,K-Bar, and backpack. I'm not sure where the hands came from, I think one is Verlinden and one is from DML. Now I have no plans on casting this and selling it, but if I were, and all of those companies were still in business, would I really be hurting them by using those various parts to make an original figure? Its not as if I am taking an original figure kit, recasting it and selling it as direct competition with the original (as many Chinese sellers on E-bay are doing now. $15 Young Miniatures busts, woohoo). Now, before we say "its the principle of the thing, and a copyright issue", lets look at the reaction every time its brought up that various companies create figures based on copyrighted material from movies. They are using copyrighted material and making a figure of it. That likeness of a character is copyrighted as part of the movie it comes from, there is no doubt about that. A slight name change and VIOLA!, they release it, and no one seems that upset. People actually seem more upset when its mentioned and licensing is brought up.Seems as if its OK to compromise principle when it comes to using copyrighted material from a large company, but not when it comes to borrowing a part here and there from a companies figure. Law and principle don't change based on size of the party being ripped off, if thats what its considered. Personally I don't care, but its the hypocrisy of getting all upset when one party is ripped off, but not when its another, and the justification is that its not hurting a multi-million dollar company. Using someone boots or canteen isn't hurting that small company, either. Wouldn't it be ironic if a company like Andrea actually tried to enforce a copyright if someone used one of their weapons as part of a figure kit, while they are renaming Spiderman "The Arachnid" and changing Tomb Raider to "Storm Raider" and releasing unlicensed figures of them. Get my drift?

 

[T50]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

Damn! What the hell am I doing here
sitting at my desk trying to sculpt new figures
after dinner every night. It's Friday night!
What a loser!

I should just lego together a figure with parts from
other companies and call it,
"Alpine's new figure, sculpted by yours truly".

 

[gordy]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a solution ?

Well, heres my (probably unpopular)take on it. I have never understood why there is such an uproar when a sculptor uses preexisting equipment as part of their figure, instead of scratching it themselves.

There are two camps of artists, purists and folks-that-get-stuff-done, and the two get to slap-fighting once in a while. Back to topic...

If there is a Kar98 in existence that fits the bill, why would scratching one that will end up being nearly identical make a difference? Same with water bottles, boots, what have you. Is the original sculptor of figure or the company losing any money? No.

That is the topic here, proposing an optional open license to freely circulate parts, for use and reuse, privately or commercially.

Get my drift?

Yes, yet some producers have license to reproduce subject matter, licensure and copyright material for subject matter of film or print, while related in terms of hypocrisy, is a whole separate topic -

 

[Jamie Stokes]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?

OK, staying on the item on the agenda, parts under copyleft.

For me, the key word is "Provenance". Which is defined as "the history or place of origin of an object, especially of art"

Depending on scale of parts, could it be possible to put a stamp such as a c/l or FAL on the inner brim of a helmet, butt plate of a rifle, base of a canteen, underside of a pouch? So it can be identified as such?

This is a tricky one. One of the planeteers here, Steve Readdie, (1969) is looking to make, cast & sell weapons. I'd like to have his point of view.....


I'd hate for anyone to lose compensation for hard work in sculpting a weapon or kit.
Likewise, I think to make parts available for use is a good thing.


That makes me wonder, could there be a market for a company specialized in creating that kind of accurate pieces in several scales for use to BOTH the modeller and model companies? I'm sure that kind of company could arrange some agreement with other miniatures companies to let them use its parts and even creating some others by request. That way, for a fee, the miniatures companies can have legal accurate parts so they just have to worry about the pose, theme and other more artistic features of the miniature. The parts company can offer legally the same piece to several miniature companies and the modellers, so they can charge a competitive fee that doesn't get too expensive for small companies. I think everybody gains that way. (From Fernando Ruiz)

Agreed.

And to iterate, I am discussing weapons and kit. Use of other figures to "frankenstein - Lego" a kit together, I have steered clear of.



regards,


PS - Use of the words Frankenstein & Lego is used as popular culture references, for an item made out of various other components. Original rights of creators of such concepts fully respected, and used here as colloquial English.

 

[Fernando Ruiz]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?

In my opinion, there's a huge difference between reusing an idea or reusing an actual production part.

Let's imagine that I have an average talent for sculpting, but I'm fantastic creating weapons, equipment and all that stuff. Having this in mind, I sculpt, let's say a 101st paratrooper in 75mm, taking into account that there's no such thing in the market (I'm not sure of that, but it's just an example). Any miniature that could be potentially popular and yet to be done with special and detailed equipment. So I have that miniature with AVERAGE artistic quality and EXCELLENT equipment quality. Few months later, an sculptor with much more talent in doing faces, poses and anatomy, releases his "refined" version of the same thing, in the same scale and using the parts I created.

He gets a hit and all the people who were thinking to buy my miniature because they like the theme, buy instead his. The sales of my product drops because there's something better in the market and he sells a lot of miniatures that only could exist because I did earlier all the tricky parts.

We can pretend that there's no harm done when reusing parts in an illegal way, but that's just not the case.

In the other hand, I think that getting inspiration in an idea from a movie is absolutely right. Movies and TV mark the popular culture nowadays. You cannot copyright popular culture, is a futile effort. In fact to become part of popular culture for a movie or other material is a symbol of success. But the imitation an inspiration comes with that. It's like being very famous but get angry any time someone talk you in the street. Art has always inspired in the popular ideas, no laws will stop that.

If you are not using any actual material from the copyrighted thing, but you are releasing an item that its recognizable enough to the people even if you call it "the arachnid", its OK for me. In fact, there's prestige and recognition in that activity for the original source. Doing licensed products is another fine line of work. None would pay the cost of a Knightmodels figure for a bootleg or something inspired in a movie but avoiding some symbols and such things

I would prefer not to focus on banishing and saying NO, but in solutions to existing problems. Reusing pieces is a fact and a problem. How could it be more fair to everyone?

Regards
FeR

 

[JasonB]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?

In my opinion, there's a huge difference between reusing an idea or reusing an actual production part.

Let's imagine that I have an average talent for sculpting, but I'm fantastic creating weapons, equipment and all that stuff. Having this in mind, I sculpt, let's say a 101st paratrooper in 75mm, taking into account that there's no such thing in the market (I'm not sure of that, but it's just an example). Any miniature that could be potentially popular and yet to be done with special and detailed equipment. So I have that miniature with AVERAGE artistic quality and EXCELLENT equipment quality. Few months later, an sculptor with much more talent in doing faces, poses and anatomy, releases his "refined" version of the same thing, in the same scale and using the parts I created.

He gets a hit and all the people who were thinking to buy my miniature because they like the theme, buy instead his. The sales of my product drops because there's something better in the market and he sells a lot of miniatures that only could exist because I did earlier all the tricky parts.

We can pretend that there's no harm done when reusing parts in an illegal way, but that's just not the case.

In the other hand, I think that getting inspiration in an idea from a movie is absolutely right. Movies and TV mark the popular culture nowadays. You cannot copyright popular culture, is a futile effort. In fact to become part of popular culture for a movie or other material is a symbol of success. But the imitation an inspiration comes with that. It's like being very famous but get angry any time someone talk you in the street. Art has always inspired in the popular ideas, no laws will stop that.

If you are not using any actual material from the copyrighted thing, but you are releasing an item that its recognizable enough to the people even if you call it "the arachnid", its OK for me. In fact, there's prestige and recognition in that activity for the original source. Doing licensed products is another fine line of work. None would pay the cost of a Knightmodels figure for a bootleg or something inspired in a movie but avoiding some symbols and such things


Regards
FeR

To me, and no offense meant, thats hypocrisy. Either you are against piracy and copyright infringement on the basis of financial damage to the original owner of the work, or on the basis of principle and law, or you aren't. Unless a person or company is releasing exact pirated copies of a figure, I don't think theres a financial hit, just my opinion. If you are releasing average figures, then you are taking your chances that they won't be bought in the first place, and should perhaps consider having a more accomplished artist do the faces for them from the start, or wait until your skills are better and not shortchange the buyer. If a guy can do excellent head sculpts, I doubt seriously that he wouldn't be able to do decent equipment. I dare say if that person that CAN do an excellent face just used average equipment, his figure is going to sell better than an average figure with excellent equipment. The equipment is a sundry item, not the focus of the figure.
As far as "ideas" or being "inspired by" a TV show or movie is concerned, that is as copyrighted as the actual material the movie is printed on, and as copyrighted as any figure part ever produced. Thats intellectual property, and its spelled out clearly in the credits of any movie or TV show with statements such as "all rights reserved" and "express written consent". Going "wink, wink" and calling Spiderman "the Arachnid" is proof that Andrea knows his. Otherwise, why would they rename him? Knight Models can use the official names and images because they licensed them. Are they just being foolish???Shouldn't we be telling them not to waste their time, save some money and call their stuff "Conflict in the Stars", "Dark Asmatic Villian", "Dan Uno (Scruffy Smuggler?)" or some such? There are many rules and laws that aren't really enforceable, yet they are still rules and laws. I can speed down that highway breaking several traffic laws, and 99 percent of the time nothing happens. However, if I do get pulled over by a cop, can my defense really be "everybody does it, why you ticketing me?" No, because its still the fact that I broke the law. Using copyrighted images and characters from TV and film is against the law, whether you or anyone wants to acknowledge it or not. Any company that releases an obvious figure from pop culture and renames it is acknowledging that they are breaking the law, otherwise they wouldn't see the need to rename it. But I know what the real world reason is. We want figures, and don't think its hurting anyone if we "wink wink" and buy "The Arachnid". I understand that. Thats OK with me. But I don't like it when those same people will say its not OK to borrow from other figure kits, when the law and principle are the same. Perhaps not as enforceable, but enforceable doesn't make a rule or law wrong or right.

"None would pay the cost of a Knightmodels figure for a bootleg or something inspired in a movie but avoiding some symbols and such things"

I hope the smiley after this means you realize thats a joke, because if someone did come out with unlicensed figs just as good as Knight Models, but cheaper, Knight Models would be either down the tubes, or calling George Lucas and letting them know about the unlicensed stuff. Why do you think up until this point we haven't seen much from the Star Wars franchise? Perhaps because its well known that Lucas takes copyright infringement VERY seriously and defends his copyright vigorously? I know if I were them, I would be a little upset that I was paying a license fee to do Marvel figures, while other companies are not and get a free pass.
Now, will someone please get on a large scale fig or bust of Sgt. Barnes from Platoon, please??? I have several good names in my head for it that gets around that pesky copyright.

 

[John Long]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?

This is an interesting concept. If I understand it all correctly, Gordy proposes that certain companies might make some of their items "Open Source" or somehow licensed to copy. I hope that doesn't over-simplify the concept. Could this be somewhat like "sampling" in some rap music, where a riff is used and mashed up with others to create a new sound? How is it handled in that industry?

I would like to make an observation; I've seen many manufacturers that mainly cater to the armor modeler use weapons and other equipment from DML, Tamiya, Airfix etc.. I think this is a good thing with regard to keeping things consistent. People look different and come in different sizes, but equipment usually does not. I this just accepted as the norm? Surely aftermarket figures and accessory sets help somewhat with sales of plastic armor models. Perhaps DML etc. don't care as it goes hand in glove with their products and is a net gain even though they are supplying some of the "master material" for figure and accessory sets.

Something else I've often wondered about; Say you decide to manufacture a figure. You sculpt the master entirely, except for the head. If your run is 50 figures, do you reckon you could buy 50 copies of the same head from Hornet or make some similar agreement?

 

[housecarl]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?

The same could be said for a well know manufacturer of wedgies, the armour has to sourced from somewhere. Unless of course it's all scratched.
Carl.

 

[1969]

Re: Copyright, ethics, parts re-use and a proposal?

This is a tricky one. One of the planeteers here, Steve Readdie, (1969) is looking to make, cast & sell weapons. I'd like to have his point of view.....


I'd hate for anyone to lose compensation for hard work in sculpting a weapon or kit.
Likewise, I think to make parts available for use is a good thing.

Glad you bought this subject up Gordy as it is very relevant to me at the moment with my latest decision to embark on weapons and equipment in various scales.

I am well aware that making weapons is not every ones cup of tea and I have been asked by other sculptors to produce a weapon for them to accompany a certain kit, I for one have let weapons I created be used for commercial consideration without taking any extra payment for that purpose to help some one out and I am happy to be able to do that. However I have already considered the prospect of making weapons and allowing others to use them ,in particular other companies, but under a licence agreement.
If I dont use a license agreement then the reality is I could sell just one single cast of a weapon and from that everyone can cast it and pass it on I may only make one sale, is the 12+ hours sculpting, couple of hours moulding and time spent casting and on top of that materials worth the effort, I do not think I would be carrying on with that venture for long.

I do however agree and am all for the sharing of equipment and weapons but maybe under condition of a licence and a recognition of the fact I supplied the weapon/equipment which will serve as good advertising for the company, that could off set against a fairly low licence cost. After all its is supposed to be a community and we need to all help each other to prevent this industry fading away and being destroyed by profit.

I for one from day one have never used a commercial part on any of my kits that I intend for commercial use, I decided from day one I will put the time and effort into learning all the skills necessary to complete every kit myself, that was a personal choice for me and one I am glad I took, it has taught me a lot and gives you a lot of satisfaction.


Would love to hear others opinion on this, really good point Gordy.

Steve