6 hours ago, aniron said:

Copyright violations are just that, not theft.

Same as jaywalking isn't driving under the influence and embezzlement isn't treason.

How does it harm FFG if I order a third-party Han in Hoth costume, using the cards and tokens from the FFG Han I purchased?

Or if I order a conversion kit from shapeways that allows me to better pose the FFG AT-ST, and have a crewman peeking out from the top hatch?

IMO it only adds to the visual appeal of the game - even driving sales from onlookers - and as such FFG/Disney would do well to look the other way while it's still in a grey area.

Now if someone was 3d-scanning or making molds off of FFG miniatures, selling those alongside home-printed cards and tokens, that would be another matter entirely.

Copyright violations are also called "Intellectual Theft" according to the FBI since the perpetrator is "stealing intellectual property." So it's more like calling jaywalking "illegal road crossing."

As to how it hurts FFG: by removing control of the appearance of the models from the company. If the third party model is of significantly lower quality than the official models, then someone seeing pictures online or the model in passing may think "I don't want to play that game, those models are trash."

So as long as the third party stuff is of good quality, I do agree it can add to the visual appeal. But it can also detract depending on the quality.

It also hurts people because someone went to the work of creating a character, and someone else is profiting from it.

5 hours ago, Sharkbelly said:

It also hurts people because someone went to the work of creating a character, and someone else is profiting from it.

That is not "hurting people".

There is only economic damage done if the money would have otherwise gone to the creator, which is not the case here.

FFG does not offer a Hoth Han, therefore they wouldn't have received that money anyway - and they did receive the money for the Endor Han I'll only use the cards and tokens from.

9 hours ago, Sharkbelly said:

It also hurts people because someone went to the work of creating a character, and someone else is profiting from it.

Not true, third party miniature creators are just filling voids in the marketplace.

Don't worry guys, i'm sure that Disney will survive these big hits to it's wallet.

12 hours ago, Sharkbelly said:

It also hurts people because someone went to the work of creating a character, and someone else is profiting from it.

No, that's not at all how that works. If I buy a Han Solo cosplay someone else has put together, am I hurting the original costume designer? Absolutely not. That's the same logic as saying that by donating to cause X you hate cause Y because you took money from them by not donating them too.

Latest 3D print order I got was yesterday. "Hunter" helmets to turn an extra Deathtrooper mini into a Clone Airborne ARC trooper, something that is new, and never before seen in either canon. FFG got money from me fro the original deathtrooper figure, but I still bought a 3D printed DC-15 and Clone Paratrooper helmet for the conversion. Is this a copyright violation? After all, the original designers of the DC-15 and Paratrooper helmet didn't get money out of the deal.

Sharkbelly, you're sounding like the kind of person that flags YouTube video reviews for copyright violations. That doesn't help anyone and only hurts the consumer/fanbase.

I sure hope this is different enough from the source material.

8 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

Sharkbelly, you're sounding like the kind of person that flags YouTube video reviews for copyright violations.

You presume too much. I seek to understand, so that is why I ask.

Why call models by fake names, then, like "Admiral Radish?"

21 minutes ago, Sharkbelly said:

You presume too much. I seek to understand, so that is why I ask.

Why call models by fake names, then, like "Admiral Radish?"

That's basically a non-sequitur given that it doesn't seem to have anything to do with your argument at all. Why do you think they call them fake names?

8 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

No, that's not at all how that works. If I buy a Han Solo cosplay someone else has put together, am I hurting the original costume designer? Absolutely not. That's the same logic as saying that by donating to cause X you hate cause Y because you took money from them by not donating them too.

Latest 3D print order I got was yesterday. "Hunter" helmets to turn an extra Deathtrooper mini into a Clone Airborne ARC trooper, something that is new, and never before seen in either canon. FFG got money from me fro the original deathtrooper figure, but I still bought a 3D printed DC-15 and Clone Paratrooper helmet for the conversion. Is this a copyright violation? After all, the original designers of the DC-15 and Paratrooper helmet didn't get money out of the deal.

Sharkbelly, you're sounding like the kind of person that flags YouTube video reviews for copyright violations. That doesn't help anyone and only hurts the consumer/fanbase.

That is not a logical comparison.

If you purchase a fake in lieu of the real thing, it’s an obvious theft of profit from the artist:

But for the knockoff, you would have bought the real thing. But for the fact that it’s an IP you are interested in, you would not have purchased it at all.

Ergo the IP thief’s profits are only realized by virtue of stealing the IP, and not their own talents/creations.

31 minutes ago, arnoldrew said:

That's basically a non-sequitur given that it doesn't seem to have anything to do with your argument at all. Why do you think they call them fake names?

Because if selling the model is totally legit, then why not simply call it what it is? Making up fake names seems to belie some sense that it is not okay.

The other well know wargaming company are ruthless at shutting down third party manufacturers for their game because minis ARE their business.

I think Legion third party stuff is in a slightly safer place. Shapeways, etc. versions of SW minis doesn't hurt Disney's bottom line (their licensing deal with FFG sees to that) - and therefore isn't at all high on the Mouse's copyright infringement agenda. It might be higher on FFG's agenda - but FFG have a really solid defence in the sheer number of dead trees you need to play their games (unlike that other well known tabletop war games manufacturer, where you can get by with poorly scanned pdfs). Every sculpt on Mel's needs an official FFG product to be playable, so it's probably not really eating into their margin... yet

1 hour ago, Sharkbelly said:

Because if selling the model is totally legit, then why not simply call it what it is? Making up fake names seems to belie some sense that it is not okay.

Simple. Because calling it the Star Wars IP owned name would be an IP violation, where calling it a name they make up is not an IP violation. The design of the model may be an infringement, often it would not be considered so by a court by the Shapeway models I've seen, so in essence, they are doing this to not violate Disney's intellectual property.

And I think that's the heart of it. Han Solo by another name is still Han Solo.

53 minutes ago, Sharkbelly said:

And I think that's the heart of it. Han Solo by another name is still Han Solo.

Except what you think is incorrect.

A name is a Trademark. If you make a widget for, say, a bicycle called Bikewidget, and you register that Trademark, then if I come along and also make a widget for a bicycle called Bikewidget, I am infringing your Trademark. That is true whether my widget is a direct copy of yours or not. If I make a widget for a motorcycle and call it Bikewidget, you might try to enforce your Trademark, but you'd have to demonstrate that a person going to buy a widget for a bicycle would be confused that my widget for a motorcycle is called the same thing. If your Trademark is *really* famous - like, say, "Han Solo" is - then you can probably enforce it in a blanket fashion, even if I were using it for something completely unrelated to bicycles.

The actual appearance of an object is covered by Copyright (or, depending on jurisdiction and function, Design Rights or some similar separate category). Copyright does not operate by the same rules as Trademarks. You can Copyright very specific expressions of an idea, such as the actual miniature FFG produce and sell as "Han Solo", but you cannot copyright "man in a long coat with a sci-fi gun". It doesn't matter how famous your "man in a long coat with a sci-fi gun" is, you only have the right to control and claim ownership over your specific version of the idea.

So long as someone is not producing a miniature with Harrison Ford's exact likeness, that isn't an exact duplicate of an existing branded & sold model, and they're not calling it Han Solo, then "Han Solo" by another name is not Han Solo, legally speaking.

When companies make the argument you do - and the person they're arguing against has the money or pro bono representation to fight it - they lose. Again - Lucasfilm v Ainsworth. GW v Chapterhouse Studios(and that one's in the USA, one of the most corporate-friendly court systems in the world). Jedirev refers to GW(I believe anyway), but after their absolute shambles of an attempt to go after Chapterhouse, they have backed right off their prior aggressively litigious attitude, because the absolute wombats in charge have finally grasped that you can't claim ownership over geometric shapes or generic visual cues or letters from alphabets that are thousands of years old. Instead, they've been focusing on what they can control and easily sue over in future if the opportunity arises - Trademarks; it's no accident they've stopped calling things Elves and Orcs and Marines in favour of Groblesnork Warblflorbles and Pseudolatinicius Nonsensicus stuff .

Regardless, as people have stated numerous times, Disney have a literal army of lawyers, so how about instead of joining up with the Tabletop Gaming Volunteer Copyright Police folk just buy, or not, whatever they feel comfortable with and leave the legal stuff to the people who's actual job it is to care.

59 minutes ago, Yodhrin said:

Regardless, as people have stated numerous times, Disney have a literal army of lawyers, so how about instead of joining up with the Tabletop Gaming Volunteer Copyright Police folk just buy, or not, whatever they feel comfortable with and leave the legal stuff to the people who's actual job it is to care.

Easy now, I'm just asking the question.

35 minutes ago, Yodhrin said:

Except what you think is incorrect.

A name is a Trademark. If you make a widget for, say, a bicycle called Bikewidget, and you register that Trademark, then if I come along and also make a widget for a bicycle called Bikewidget, I am infringing your Trademark. That is true whether my widget is a direct copy of yours or not. If I make a widget for a motorcycle and call it Bikewidget, you might try to enforce your Trademark, but you'd have to demonstrate that a person going to buy a widget for a bicycle would be confused that my widget for a motorcycle is called the same thing. If your Trademark is *really* famous - like, say, "Han Solo" is - then you can probably enforce it in a blanket fashion, even if I were using it for something completely unrelated to bicycles.

The actual appearance of an object is covered by Copyright (or, depending on jurisdiction and function, Design Rights or some similar separate category). Copyright does not operate by the same rules as Trademarks. You can Copyright very specific expressions of an idea, such as the actual miniature FFG produce and sell as "Han Solo", but you cannot copyright "man in a long coat with a sci-fi gun". It doesn't matter how famous your "man in a long coat with a sci-fi gun" is, you only have the right to control and claim ownership over your specific version of the idea.

So long as someone is not producing a miniature with Harrison Ford's exact likeness, that isn't an exact duplicate of an existing branded & sold model, and they're not calling it Han Solo, then "Han Solo" by another name is not Han Solo, legally speaking.

When companies make the argument you do - and the person they're arguing against has the money or pro bono representation to fight it - they lose. Again - Lucasfilm v Ainsworth. GW v Chapterhouse Studios(and that one's in the USA, one of the most corporate-friendly court systems in the world). Jedirev refers to GW(I believe anyway), but after their absolute shambles of an attempt to go after Chapterhouse, they have backed right off their prior aggressively litigious attitude, because the absolute wombats in charge have finally grasped that you can't claim ownership over geometric shapes or generic visual cues or letters from alphabets that are thousands of years old. Instead, they've been focusing on what they can control and easily sue over in future if the opportunity arises - Trademarks; it's no accident they've stopped calling things Elves and Orcs and Marines in favour of Groblesnork Warblflorbles and Pseudolatinicius Nonsensicus stuff .

Regardless, as people have stated numerous times, Disney have a literal army of lawyers, so how about instead of joining up with the Tabletop Gaming Volunteer Copyright Police folk just buy, or not, whatever they feel comfortable with and leave the legal stuff to the people who's actual job it is to care.

If my eyes rolled as hard as needed for this post, I’d pull the muscles in both.

In any case, when we the audience for these works can eyeball them and ID them for what they are, it’s plainly derivative.

10 minutes ago, Derrault said:

If my eyes rolled as hard as needed for this post, I’d pull the muscles in both.

In any case, when we the audience for these works can eyeball them and ID them for what they are, it’s plainly derivative.

When American copyright laws consider it to be legally permissible (and they do), I don't understand why any gamers need to get upset over the matter. They're selling 3rd party game pieces and generally they are all legally doing so, why have stricter personal standards beyond that?

12 minutes ago, Derrault said:

If my eyes rolled as hard as needed for this post, I’d pull the muscles in both.

In any case, when we the audience for these works can eyeball them and ID them for what they are, it’s plainly derivative.

If it's so plain, perhaps you can redirect some of that eyerolling energy towards mustering up an actual retort to the points made, rather than just snarking?

"Copyright law helps protect writers, artists and other copyright holders by precluding others from using their creative works without permission. Knock-offs, or unauthorized imitation goods that are passed off to consumers as the real thing, can violate copyright law when the knock-off goods are books, paintings, movies or other creative works. Owners of active, registered copyrights can gain protection against copyright knock-offs with civil lawsuits or, in certain extreme cases, by pressing criminal charges."

How about this? I know that they are not being *exactly* passed off as the real thing, but it seems kind of "wink wink."

Scope of Copyright Protection

Copyright protects creative intellectual property like fiction and non-fiction writing, stage and screenplay scripts, musical compositions and arrangements, and works of visual art including paintings, sculptures and photographs. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to copy or distribute the creative work, or to make derivative works, such as a sequel to a novel or movie, or posters made from a painting. Consumer goods like fashion items or home appliances are not subject to copyright law. Knock-offs of these consumer goods may violate unfair trade practices or trademark laws, but only knock-off creative works can violate copyright laws.

15 hours ago, Derrault said:

That is not a logical comparison.

If you purchase a fake in lieu of the real thing, it’s an obvious theft of profit from the artist:

But for the knockoff, you would have bought the real thing. But for the fact that it’s an IP you are interested in, you would not have purchased it at all.

Ergo the IP thief’s profits are only realized by virtue of stealing the IP, and not their own talents/creations.

No, because in these cases there was no other option. There is no "real thing." There is no FFG Airborne ARC trooper, there is no FFG Bothan commander. By buying them, I am not taking away any money from any artist simply because they are not offering a product I wish to buy. Therefore, there is no theft.

With these 3D print options, they almost always offer an extra option, not something that can be used completely on its own. Let's say you want to use Hoth Han Solo. For the game, you'd still need the Han Solo cards, and thus the FFG Han Solo pack. FFG has made money from this deal, Disney, by their licensing agreement, has made money, and the maker of the 3D printer has made money. It's a win for everyone, and no theft was involved.

10 hours ago, Sharkbelly said:

"Copyright law helps protect writers, artists and other copyright holders by precluding others from using their creative works without permission. Knock-offs, or unauthorized imitation goods that are passed off to consumers as the real thing, can violate copyright law when the knock-off goods are books, paintings, movies or other creative works. Owners of active, registered copyrights can gain protection against copyright knock-offs with civil lawsuits or, in certain extreme cases, by pressing criminal charges."

How about this? I know that they are not being *exactly* passed off as the real thing, but it seems kind of "wink wink."

Scope of Copyright Protection

Copyright protects creative intellectual property like fiction and non-fiction writing, stage and screenplay scripts, musical compositions and arrangements, and works of visual art including paintings, sculptures and photographs. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to copy or distribute the creative work, or to make derivative works, such as a sequel to a novel or movie, or posters made from a painting. Consumer goods like fashion items or home appliances are not subject to copyright law. Knock-offs of these consumer goods may violate unfair trade practices or trademark laws, but only knock-off creative works can violate copyright laws.

At no point do these 3D print options try to pass "off to consumers" their product as being "the real thing," at least as far as I have seen. At most, they often mention their products as being "compatible" (IE, a similar scale) with Star Wars Legion. This is the same for acrylic tokens, which use a similar appearance to official products, but don't actually copy any existing items.

27 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

No, because in these cases there was no other option. There is no "real thing." There is no FFG Airborne ARC trooper, there is no FFG Bothan commander. By buying them, I am not taking away any money from any artist simply because they are not offering a product I wish to buy. Therefore, there is no theft.

With these 3D print options, they almost always offer an extra option, not something that can be used completely on its own. Let's say you want to use Hoth Han Solo. For the game, you'd still need the Han Solo cards, and thus the FFG Han Solo pack. FFG has made money from this deal, Disney, by their licensing agreement, has made money, and the maker of the 3D printer has made money. It's a win for everyone, and no theft was involved.

At no point do these 3D print options try to pass "off to consumers" their product as being "the real thing," at least as far as I have seen. At most, they often mention their products as being "compatible" (IE, a similar scale) with Star Wars Legion. This is the same for acrylic tokens, which use a similar appearance to official products, but don't actually copy any existing items.

In point of fact, you’re taking away the creators future earning potential by selling products from that IP.

If they buy your Bothan, they may not buy any official Bothan that the IP owners might create.

And, whether they do or do not is totally immaterial, it wasn’t your property to do that with. Not dissimilar to if you stole their car on the weekends without their consent.

18 minutes ago, Derrault said:

In point of fact, you’re taking away the creators future earning potential by selling products from that IP.

If they buy your Bothan, they may not buy any official Bothan that the IP owners might create.

And, whether they do or do not is totally immaterial, it wasn’t your property to do that with. Not dissimilar to if you stole their car on the weekends without their consent.

By the same logic, if I painted some minis (even official ones) and sold them, I'd be taking away from FFG's potential future earnings on the off-hand chance they decide to start selling prepainted minis. After all, I'm painting the figures like characters that are their IP, and that must be theft, right?

And stealing their car is a completely different issue that has no bearing to this conversation whatsoever. In such a case, you are in fact denying them their property. Nothing we have thus discussed has any potential connection to that.

12 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

By the same logic, if I painted some minis (even official ones) and sold them, I'd be taking away from FFG's potential future earnings on the off-hand chance they decide to start selling prepainted minis. After all, I'm painting the figures like characters that are their IP, and that must be theft, right?

And stealing their car is a completely different issue that has no bearing to this conversation whatsoever. In such a case, you are in fact denying them their property. Nothing we have thus discussed has any potential connection to that.

Not at all the same for things you’ve purchased and resold, its transfer of property. In that scenario the IP owner was compensated.

Conversely, if you recreate the likeness of the character(s) yourself and then sell that, the IP owner was never compensated for your use of the IP.

Get the difference?

(the car metaphor is to demonstrate that the owner suffers harm from you yang said property even if they aren’t using it; because you deny them their rightful opportunity to exploit their own creations).

1 minute ago, Derrault said:

Not at all the same for things you’ve purchased and resold, its transfer of property. In that scenario the IP owner was compensated.

Conversely, if you recreate the likeness of the character(s) yourself and then sell that, the IP owner was never compensated for your use of the IP.

Get the difference?

But isn't that what we're doing? Recreating the likeness of a character(s) by painting or modifying the product they originally sold?

And in my original scenario, the IP owner was compensated by buying their products for the cards for Han, or a generic rebel commander to use with the Bothan. Even if they eventually release a separate Bothan commander expansion pack, with mass casualty action, I'd still need the cards they provide to play it as that unit, so they're still not loosing out on anything either now or in this mystical future where they release expansions that interact with every potential 3D print option.

As a side note, this conversation is getting really old, fast. Like most internet arguments, neither of us are going to change the minds of the other.

3 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

But isn't that what we're doing? Recreating the likeness of a character(s) by painting or modifying the product they originally sold?

And in my original scenario, the IP owner was compensated by buying their products for the cards for Han, or a generic rebel commander to use with the Bothan. Even if they eventually release a separate Bothan commander expansion pack, with mass casualty action, I'd still need the cards they provide to play it as that unit, so they're still not loosing out on anything either now or in this mystical future where they release expansions that interact with every potential 3D print option.

As a side note, this conversation is getting really old, fast. Like most internet arguments, neither of us are going to change the minds of the other.

No, and in any case you’re compensating the owner for their product, not creating the product out of whole cloth and then selling the unlicensed knock off.