...The other thing to bear in mind is whether some of the ship designs are owned by LucasFilm, since I believe a lot are instead based upon illustrations produced for RPG's etc by other companies whose products were licensed from them, but may now no longer exist...not quite sure where copyright lies in those situations, but will bow to your superior knowledge re that

Material produced under license would still be considered copyrighted by the licensing company (take a look at the copyright info along the side of your X-Wing upgrade cards: © LFL © FFG...Even if the material is not being produced or sourced anymore, the material is still protected by copyright (it's called an "orphan work") and replication is a violation of copyright.

Thanks for this...was looking at many of the "YV" designs that are on Wookiepedia, and they mostly seem to belong to one artist who designed them for WOTC RPG handbooks...I did wonder if the IPR returned to the artist at all, or continued to belong to the 'parent' licencee...thanks

Probably 40+ years ago Disney issued a Cease and Desist order to a company that made decals for model airplane kits. Why? Glad you asked. It seems the decal company was producing decals for the 'nose art' on a specific WW II navy aircraft. Disney had generated the original design and had given that piece of art to the pilot. Putting the design on an aircraft's nose is different than duplicating it and selling that design. Disney never relinquished their ownership of the design and still had a good legal standing even though that art work had appeared hundreds if not thousands of time in print and photographs. That was about 25 years after the war ended.

After the earlier discussion above, had been wondering about similar situations where companies have produced 'super-detailing' packages for various models in the past...with a view to the idea of offering such detailing/mods as 3d-printable files [following a post about something similar in my mods/repaints thread] - if something is an addition, as opposed to a replacement part, is it still treated in the same way ? Do these producers of detailing kits have to seek permission from the kit manufacturer or the licencee, or both ?

...and does any of this come in to play if it's all done on a 'not-for-profit' basis, like the distribution of free STL files on Thingiverse under the "Creative Commons" licence?

I've no axe to grind either way...I don't see there's any difference between scratchbuilt models of existing designs and 3d-printed versions of the same, but if one is deemed acceptable and the other not, fair enough...but please do note Giledhil's comment in his later post that the YT-2000 causing all the dispute was home-printed, and I suspect from the same source that I produced mine which is a freely-available file...if they're not allowed, why should a scratchbuilt version of the same craft be permitted ?

Cheers

Hi Ian, yes your right to ask the question about Printing models from your home printer and scratch building.

You have made them, not for resale, but for your personal consumption.

Shouldn't be a problem.

However.

If you order one from...Let's say Shapeways as a reference.

Then that's a problem.

If, they are not paying for the license to produce that part or model.

Here's another example.

I customise lots of the FFG models.....Almost unrecognisable in some cases.

They are for my personal use, and that's fine.

But.....

I have been asked to make molds of some of the models and sell them.

That's a big NO NO.

I would be breaking the law with regards to product ownership and licensing.

That's a road I won't go down.

Heck, had it done to me !

so I won't do it to any one or company.

So your printed models should be fine.

You made it for you.

And they look very good by the way !

All the best,

Barry.

Tell you what.

I'll get FFG Directly involved.

I will chat to some moderators and contact FFG Directly like I did last time.

See if I can get a moderator to comment on this particular situation.

In the mean time.

Perhaps some of you might find this interesting.

It is Star wars related with regards to licencing.

Go down a few paragraphs and it gets to the nitty gritty of it......

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=/amp/s/legalmatterblog.com/2015/04/27/may-the-4th-be-with-your-brand-a-legal-guide-to-making-star-wars-tributes/amp/&ved=0ahUKEwi91rzIsavRAhXBPRoKHRZxAtcQFggjMAE&usg=AFQjCNEMrSNp3lJWdp3yBUKtX2mXzlLdKw&sig2=rPgfgvsnpAvVHtVGwke39w

Given that Disney have shown perfectly willing to go after people other than FFG making money off this game, I am also curious where the line is regarding 3D printing and websites like Shapeways but am not sure I want to push and find out, particularly not if it means we risk losing - again - once of my personal favorite subforums.

The main issue was certain artist posting links to buy their models... that is what pushed it over.

What I take from yours & Joe's posts [and your link], Barry, is that it should be fine to discuss Shapeways print service, but not directly reference/show/link any of their marketplace vendors or, if showing their painted/modified products, provide similar [except, perhaps, on request by PM].

...and if a model or associated documentation contains references to actual clearly-identifiable content from any of the various SW media [eg a reference to "The Clone Wars", as opposed to, perhaps, "the Galactic civil war"], then probably best to remove/replace it.

Will be really interested to see what kind of response you get to your query, especially in light of the line in the link, "Disney won’t waste its time, money and reputation filing lawsuits against Star Wars fans absent a very compelling reason. What they most assuredly will do, though, is tirelessly defend any unauthorized commercial uses of their property—and justifiably so."

- thanks for taking on the responsibility of asking the question

Cheers

But.....

I have been asked to make molds of some of the models and sell them.

That's a big NO NO.

I would be breaking the law with regards to product ownership and licensing.

Playing Devils Advocate here, wonder how FFG can go about proving/preventing the 3D-scanning of their models and subsequent reproduction ? - Will they be adding © or identity tags of some kind to the models ?

Can't imagine it's a problem at the moment since, at least for all the 'home' scanners I've seen, the quality of reproduction is nowhere near good enough...but, as we were discussing in my mods/repaints thread, how long before it improves in the same way as the 3d-printers have done!

Although maybe by then it wouldn't really be a commercially-viable 'pirate' scheme, anyway...

Cheers

Barry, just wanted to say that you are probably the most genuinely nice person on this sub. I have never read a post of yours to be anything other than kind and genuine even when people are douchenozzles to you.

Hello X-Wing forum community-

Contrary to popular opinion, the appearance of unlicensed ships actually had nothing to do with the removal of the Painting and Modification subforum. Similarly, although sales or marketing of any kind are not allowed on our forums (and these threads result in warnings and bans for the initial posters), these were also not the reason for the removal of the subforum. The forums were removed due to internal concerns that have since been resolved.

We very much appreciate your concern, but users posting pictures of unlicensed ships are not putting the subforum in danger of disappearing. If such a situation were to arise in the future, we will contact the forum and inform everyone of the new rules before taking such drastic measures to enforce them.

Thanks!

Evan Johnson

FFG Forum Admin

Thank you Evan.

Regards

Barry.

Hello X-Wing forum community-

Contrary to popular opinion, the appearance of unlicensed ships actually had nothing to do with the removal of the Painting and Modification subforum. Similarly, although sales or marketing of any kind are not allowed on our forums (and these threads result in warnings and bans for the initial posters), these were also not the reason for the removal of the subforum. The forums were removed due to internal concerns that have since been resolved.

We very much appreciate your concern, but users posting pictures of unlicensed ships are not putting the subforum in danger of disappearing. If such a situation were to arise in the future, we will contact the forum and inform everyone of the new rules before taking such drastic measures to enforce them.

Thanks!

Evan Johnson

FFG Forum Admin

love it, thank you for the clarity.

Hello X-Wing forum community-

Contrary to popular opinion, the appearance of unlicensed ships actually had nothing to do with the removal of the Painting and Modification subforum. Similarly, although sales or marketing of any kind are not allowed on our forums (and these threads result in warnings and bans for the initial posters), these were also not the reason for the removal of the subforum. The forums were removed due to internal concerns that have since been resolved.

We very much appreciate your concern, but users posting pictures of unlicensed ships are not putting the subforum in danger of disappearing. If such a situation were to arise in the future, we will contact the forum and inform everyone of the new rules before taking such drastic measures to enforce them.

Thanks!

Evan Johnson

FFG Forum Admin

Thank you for the clarification!

...The other thing to bear in mind is whether some of the ship designs are owned by LucasFilm, since I believe a lot are instead based upon illustrations produced for RPG's etc by other companies whose products were licensed from them, but may now no longer exist...not quite sure where copyright lies in those situations, but will bow to your superior knowledge re that

Material produced under license would still be considered copyrighted by the licensing company (take a look at the copyright info along the side of your X-Wing upgrade cards: © LFL © FFG...Even if the material is not being produced or sourced anymore, the material is still protected by copyright (it's called an "orphan work") and replication is a violation of copyright.

Thanks for this...was looking at many of the "YV" designs that are on Wookiepedia, and they mostly seem to belong to one artist who designed them for WOTC RPG handbooks...I did wonder if the IPR returned to the artist at all, or continued to belong to the 'parent' licencee...thanks

Probably 40+ years ago Disney issued a Cease and Desist order to a company that made decals for model airplane kits. Why? Glad you asked. It seems the decal company was producing decals for the 'nose art' on a specific WW II navy aircraft. Disney had generated the original design and had given that piece of art to the pilot. Putting the design on an aircraft's nose is different than duplicating it and selling that design. Disney never relinquished their ownership of the design and still had a good legal standing even though that art work had appeared hundreds if not thousands of time in print and photographs. That was about 25 years after the war ended.

After the earlier discussion above, had been wondering about similar situations where companies have produced 'super-detailing' packages for various models in the past...with a view to the idea of offering such detailing/mods as 3d-printable files [following a post about something similar in my mods/repaints thread] - if something is an addition, as opposed to a replacement part, is it still treated in the same way ? Do these producers of detailing kits have to seek permission from the kit manufacturer or the licencee, or both ?

...and does any of this come in to play if it's all done on a 'not-for-profit' basis, like the distribution of free STL files on Thingiverse under the "Creative Commons" licence?

I've no axe to grind either way...I don't see there's any difference between scratchbuilt models of existing designs and 3d-printed versions of the same, but if one is deemed acceptable and the other not, fair enough...but please do note Giledhil's comment in his later post that the YT-2000 causing all the dispute was home-printed, and I suspect from the same source that I produced mine which is a freely-available file...if they're not allowed, why should a scratchbuilt version of the same craft be permitted ?

Cheers

The swimming pool of IP and Copyright Law is very deep. That's why there's a whole section of law dedicated to it. The rule of thumb I've used in the past is if it's just for ME I'm relatively sure I'm ok. If I modify a kit part and make a mold because I need a dozen I'm still ok. If I give that mold to friend so he can do the same, I think I'm in a gray area and that might be a problem. If I take that mold and start reproducing copies for sale, I've stepped in the deep end of the pool and could get into trouble. I say could because if I get caught I've definitely violated a copyright. The least that could happen is I get a C&D notice from a law firm with more partners than we have senators. If I stupidly persist, then it gets much worse.

If you plan on selling or distributing something that may be copyrighted or have its base as a copyrighted item, see an attorney. It's cheap insurance.

Barry, just wanted to say that you are probably the most genuinely nice person on this sub. I have never read a post of yours to be anything other than kind and genuine even when people are douchenozzles to you.

Thank you Tim.

Well it comes down to a few things, no point dragging yourself down to other peoples negative levels,

and Personally.

I have had to deal with some very heavy and exhaustive Court Battles over the last seven years.

Trolls on Social media are nothing when you have to go up against fire breathing, mouth foaming Monstrous Lawyers

who want to rip you to pieces and take everything you have !

The Joys of Being a Self Employed Designer/Artist and Sculptor is when you come up with a good idea, bring it to life.

patent it, think everything is OK, and then along comes someone else and or a company and rips you off.

You tend to get a thick skin fighting tooth and nail in Court.

And so far I have successfully defended my self in Court three times.

I have worked in the Film and TV industry for the last nine years. before that, Design Engineering and Architecture.

And now when I'm not working on a film or TV show I some times Lecture at Universities and colleges.

Most of the time Helping students with there design projects.......and sometimes on the pit falls of the nasty side

of the creative industry......there is always someone who wants to rip you off and get the better of you !

And so I try to Help others in any way I can, Sometimes have Art Students working with me at my Workshop.

Its great when they want to learn.

And that's what I like about this Forum.

Most are willing to share Ideas and Help each other out.

Be Positive to each other and enjoy each others work

Besides........The Negative comments make me smile !

All the best Guys.

Barry.

Thank you Evan, Barry and all who support our little painting community.

@Giledhil, I like what you did with your ship; by all means, be proud.

Bear in mind that for my part, painting/modding is an equal draw for me, as is playing and collecting ships. So when you posted as you did, before things were cleared up for all of us, it felt disheartening and maybe a bit upsetting that one of our own would potentially put that at risk. I'm happy to know that printed ships aren't going to end the forum.

If you plan on selling or distributing something that may be copyrighted or have its base as a copyrighted item, see an attorney. It's cheap insurance.

Was strictly a free-to-use idea that came up from a discussion about the R1 Hammerhead add-ons that I'd printed, and the possibility of printed alternative parts for the various FFG Epics such as different guns, comms arrays and the like...no more than an idea at the moment, though

Cheers for the response...

Hello X-Wing forum community-

Contrary to popular opinion, the appearance of unlicensed ships actually had nothing to do with the removal of the Painting and Modification subforum. Similarly, although sales or marketing of any kind are not allowed on our forums (and these threads result in warnings and bans for the initial posters), these were also not the reason for the removal of the subforum. The forums were removed due to internal concerns that have since been resolved.

We very much appreciate your concern, but users posting pictures of unlicensed ships are not putting the subforum in danger of disappearing. If such a situation were to arise in the future, we will contact the forum and inform everyone of the new rules before taking such drastic measures to enforce them.

Thanks!

Evan Johnson

FFG Forum Admin

ViscerothSWG likes this

Honestly, unlicensed product on the forum is a good thing for FFG. Can give them an idea what kinds of products that their customers want to buy, and in the end, you still have to buy their products to use them. These items on Shapeways are an IP concern for the Mouse, on one level, but that's a different battle for them to fight. But, ultimately, most of these products don't represent lost sales for FFG, because they aren't producing a competing product. A lost opportunity, possibly (again, depending on how much leverage the Mouse applies on their product lines), but not truly a lost sale. I bought a TIE Avenger off Shapeways, because I wanted one. That wasn't a ship I didn't buy from FFG. It's literally one they don't sell.

Ultimately, this forum is full of unlicensed content. 3D printed ships are just one aspect. Custom Card League is another. Custom campaign material. Better for them to be able to bring the traffic here to their site, where they can potentially redirect that traffic to their products, rather than losing that community somewhere else.

Wow.

So much...misinformation. Spoken with such authority.

Did you get that message or not, Barry? Because it really looks like you didn't.

You can put it all down to "negativity" if you want, but you guys have been pushing this line since we lost the forum and it kept me from coming back because I thought my Oota Goota was part of the problem.

Now it turns out you are utterly wrong.

Barry and Joe need to NEVER make posts on this subject again.

Wow.

So much...misinformation. Spoken with such authority.

Did you get that message or not, Barry? Because it really looks like you didn't.

You can put it all down to "negativity" if you want, but you guys have been pushing this line since we lost the forum and it kept me from coming back because I thought my Oota Goota was part of the problem.

Now it turns out you are utterly wrong.

Barry and Joe need to NEVER make posts on this subject again.

Well obviously I Did because I'm the one THAT ASKED THE BLOODY QUESTION to the moderator in the First place !

Get it.

And before you get to ahead of your self read it again.

"Although sales or marketing of any kind are not allowed on our forums"

Speaks volumes about what was happening last time.

Either way.

Everyone now knows !

Because I asked the question.

And have received other messages from moderators relating to this.

I'm baffled as to why people are questioning this. It's pretty standard for a company to disallow third party advertising/marketing of unlicensed product on their turf.

There are a special sort of ***hat in this thread

Wow.

So much...misinformation. Spoken with such authority.

Did you get that message or not, Barry? Because it really looks like you didn't.

You can put it all down to "negativity" if you want, but you guys have been pushing this line since we lost the forum and it kept me from coming back because I thought my Oota Goota was part of the problem.

Now it turns out you are utterly wrong.

Barry and Joe need to NEVER make posts on this subject again.

Well obviously I Did because I'm the one THAT ASKED THE BLOODY QUESTION to the moderator in the First place !

Get it.

And before you get to ahead of your self read it again.

"Although sales or marketing of any kind are not allowed on our forums"

Speaks volumes about what was happening last time.

Either way.

Everyone now knows !

Because I asked the question.

And have received other messages from moderators relating to this.

And before you get to ahead of your self read it again.

"Although sales or marketing of any kind are not allowed on our forums..."

Speaks volumes about what was happening last time.

You only posted half of that quote, Barry. The rest reads:

"...these were also not the reason for the removal of the subforum."

regards

I'm baffled as to why people are questioning this.

Because some people don't immediately believe unsourced statements on the internet (especially with some caps-locked title).

And it appears they were right to doubt it

@Barry : please note that I don't think that your thread was ill-intentioned; I'm just really suspicious about unsourced allegations.
I may be a little overreacting, due to my current commitment against misinformation in today's media.

Wow.

So much...misinformation. Spoken with such authority.

Did you get that message or not, Barry? Because it really looks like you didn't.

You can put it all down to "negativity" if you want, but you guys have been pushing this line since we lost the forum and it kept me from coming back because I thought my Oota Goota was part of the problem.

Now it turns out you are utterly wrong.

Barry and Joe need to NEVER make posts on this subject again.

Well obviously I Did because I'm the one THAT ASKED THE BLOODY QUESTION to the moderator in the First place !

Get it.

And before you get to ahead of your self read it again.

"Although sales or marketing of any kind are not allowed on our forums"

Speaks volumes about what was happening last time.

Either way.

Everyone now knows !

Because I asked the question.

And have received other messages from moderators relating to this.

I'm not talking about the message posted to the forum for us all to read to clear up your mess.

I'm talking about the sekret one that you somehow had security clearance for but that you were sworn to not share with us.

The one that completely contradicts the post we can all see.

You need to stop embarrassing yourself.

You just wanted to throw your weight around and be a forum nazi.

There's others immitating you now! A guy made a post with his fan art card and someone posted "please refer to barrys post about licensing blah blah".

So now that guy is bummed out and misinformed. (if you're reading this card-dude; don't be dicouraged. you can post your cards all day).

I'm baffled as to why people are questioning this. It's pretty standard for a company to disallow third party advertising/marketing of unlicensed product on their turf.

There are a special sort of ***hat in this thread

FFG just told us that it's fine. Understand?

It's you who isn't grasping the simple concept here.

Wow.

So much...misinformation. Spoken with such authority.

Did you get that message or not, Barry? Because it really looks like you didn't.

You can put it all down to "negativity" if you want, but you guys have been pushing this line since we lost the forum and it kept me from coming back because I thought my Oota Goota was part of the problem.

Now it turns out you are utterly wrong.

Barry and Joe need to NEVER make posts on this subject again.

Well obviously I Did because I'm the one THAT ASKED THE BLOODY QUESTION to the moderator in the First place !

Get it.

And before you get to ahead of your self read it again.

"Although sales or marketing of any kind are not allowed on our forums"

Speaks volumes about what was happening last time.

Either way.

Everyone now knows !

Because I asked the question.

And have received other messages from moderators relating to this.

I'm not talking about the message posted to the forum for us all to read to clear up your mess.

I'm talking about the sekret one that you somehow had security clearance for but that you were sworn to not share with us.

The one that completely contradicts the post we can all see.

You need to stop embarrassing yourself.

^^ It's that part.

THAT'S the part that makes this whole thread weird and uncomfortable.

I wasn't going to bring it up, but... yeah...

Request to admin to have this thread closed, and anything like it created again, should be BANNED. This discussion has been over since the FFG employee gave us the REAL information in regards to the original thread topic.