11 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

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.

I disagree with you here. At least some of them, such as "General Trapbar", "Desert Scrappers" or "Adult Scruffy Scoundrel", are, I believe.

And I don't mean to pick on Skull Forge. But I believe the appeal of these models is because they are intended to represent the real thing.

Are people seriously bothered that Disney, a company with an appalling record for how it has treated its artists is maybe, occasionally denied a pittance for models it is not producing?

Am I bothered by it? No. I do find it to be a very interesting question, though.

11 hours ago, Sharkbelly said:

I disagree with you here. At least some of them, such as "General Trapbar", "Desert Scrappers" or "Adult Scruffy Scoundrel", are, I believe.

And I don't mean to pick on Skull Forge. But I believe the appeal of these models is because they are intended to represent the real thing.

Literally, the first line in the description of the "Scoundrel" is " This web store and its contents are completely unofficial, and its contents are in no way endorsed, or affiliated with Disney or Lucasarts ." The names chosen were done so to NOT be the ones used in the films, to further limit the chances of anyone thinking this was anything official. So, no, they are definitely not trying to pretend to be "the real thing."

The appeal of the models is that they are high-quality semi-custom minis that fill a void in FFG's product line. As mentioned before, I've ordered several 3D prints before, either to fill a void (such as certain helmets or weapons) or to offer alternatives to FFG's official minis (such as the Bothan Commander, or Mudtrooper Officer). At no point did I think any of these items were official.

1 hour ago, Alpha17 said:

Literally, the first line in the description of the "Scoundrel" is " This web store and its contents are completely unofficial, and its contents are in no way endorsed, or affiliated with Disney or Lucasarts ." The names chosen were done so to NOT be the ones used in the films, to further limit the chances of anyone thinking this was anything official. So, no, they are definitely not trying to pretend to be "the real thing."

The appeal of the models is that they are high-quality semi-custom minis that fill a void in FFG's product line. As mentioned before, I've ordered several 3D prints before, either to fill a void (such as certain helmets or weapons) or to offer alternatives to FFG's official minis (such as the Bothan Commander, or Mudtrooper Officer). At no point did I think any of these items were official.

The problem becomes when someone else sees these models painted up on a table or part of a battle report. Unless that same disclaimer it's present they may think these are official models.

Which isn't a huge deal with high quality models in inoffensive poses, but if "General Trapbar" was modeled making a rude gesture, then people can get the wrong idea about the game.

9 hours ago, srMontresor said:

Are people seriously bothered that Disney, a company with an appalling record for how it has treated its artists is maybe, occasionally denied a pittance for models it is not producing?

As a matter of principle, if a company with the actual resources to try and defend its creations is incapable of doing so, what hope do individuals have against such piracy? None.

If you really give a lick about the individual, you’d be a hypocrite to deny that to the larger entity.

2 hours ago, Alpha17 said:

Literally, the first line in the description of the "Scoundrel" is " This web store and its contents are completely unofficial, and its contents are in no way endorsed, or affiliated with Disney or Lucasarts ." The names chosen were done so to NOT be the ones used in the films, to further limit the chances of anyone thinking this was anything official. So, no, they are definitely not trying to pretend to be "the real thing."

The appeal of the models is that they are high-quality semi-custom minis that fill a void in FFG's product line. As mentioned before, I've ordered several 3D prints before, either to fill a void (such as certain helmets or weapons) or to offer alternatives to FFG's official minis (such as the Bothan Commander, or Mudtrooper Officer). At no point did I think any of these items were official.

Right and you ordered them because they were, intentionally, likenesses of the characters you wanted to represent.

Not “Scruffy smuggler” (a famous description of the character) but Han Solo.

Not General Trapbar (an obvious portmanteau reference to Admiral Ackbar’s famous line from RotJ with the last half of his last name.)

The point is that if they don’t have a license to Ackbar’s likeness it really doesn’t matter what they call the end result.

3 hours ago, Derrault said:

As a matter of principle, if a company with the actual resources to try and defend its creations is incapable of doing so, what hope do individuals have against such piracy? None.

If you really give a lick about the individual, you’d be a hypocrite to deny that to the larger entity.

I don’t think it’s possible to get into the real nuances of this topic without the thread turning political.

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

I don’t think it’s possible to get into the real nuances of this topic without the thread turning political.

At what stage did they give even the slightest indication they're interested in nuance? When someone is basically posting a written version of a comedy sketch but in all seriousness, I think it's safe to stop any attempts to engage with them as if they're willing to consider anything beyond their existing preconceptions.

NSFW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

I don’t think it’s possible to get into the real nuances of this topic without the thread turning political.

I completely agree.

2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I don’t think it’s possible to get into the real nuances of this topic without the thread turning political.

Some would say there’s nothing that’s not political. (Dewback V Tauntaun)

21 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The problem becomes when someone else sees these models painted up on a table or part of a battle report. Unless that same disclaimer it's present they may think these are official models.

Which isn't a huge deal with high quality models in inoffensive poses, but if "General Trapbar" was modeled making a rude gesture, then people can get the wrong idea about the game.

But you can modify an official model to do the same **** thing. Honestly, that's probably the weakest argument yet against 3D prints, and is another sign that this discussion is going nowhere.

And yes, when I play against a new person, I explain that the role of "Generic Imperial commander" will be played by Capt'n Mudai Bo'outs, a 3D printed mini, in today's episode. If they have any problem with it, I can swap them out for the official model. Thus far, no one has had an issue, because it really doesn't matter.

Is Disney still accepting applications for white knights?

1 hour ago, Alpha17 said:

But you can modify an official model to do the same **** thing. Honestly, that's probably the weakest argument yet against 3D prints, and is another sign that this discussion is going nowhere.

And yes, when I play against a new person, I explain that the role of "Generic Imperial commander" will be played by Capt'n Mudai Bo'outs, a 3D printed mini, in today's episode. If they have any problem with it, I can swap them out for the official model. Thus far, no one has had an issue, because it really doesn't matter.

The main difference being a personal modification only exists singly, while sold copies exist in greater number. I wasn't arguing against 3D printing, but rather that the "unofficial" disclaimer you pointed out is of limited protection for the company producing the model, especially when they are charging for the miniature, which is based on likenesses they didn't originate. Heck, I'm not even sure what if any alien appearances are owned by Disney and what have passed into public domain.

If they were providing the STL files for free, I THINK that turns into a different kettle of fish as "fanart" or something?

The main point is, this is a bit of a gray area, and the occurrence of these kind of thing is only going to grow as home 3D printing improves in quality and decreases in price.

On 4/29/2019 at 9:40 AM, qwertyuiop said:

Is Disney still accepting applications for white knights?

I’m pretty sure men’s rights activism falls under injecting politics, or maybe just introducing overt douchbaggerism?

12 hours ago, Derrault said:

I’m pretty sure men’s rights activism falls under injecting politics, or maybe just introducing overt douchbaggerism?

I just want you to know I value you and your opinion, regardless of what others think. I don't hold your incorrect comment against you. There's nothing suggesting activism or politics in my post, and your personal attack lacks teeth as much as it does merit. The white knight is a classic archetype. Many people have the lofty aspiration of being these paragons of virtue, and to do so for the sake of Disney is certainly a great honor; even in a task so small as arguing legal minutiae.

Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.

Does anyone know if there's a signing bonus?

14 minutes ago, qwertyuiop said:

I just want you to know I value you and your opinion, regardless of what others think. I don't hold your incorrect comment against you. There's nothing suggesting activism or politics in my post, and your personal attack lacks teeth as much as it does merit. The white knight is a classic archetype. Many people have the lofty aspiration of being these paragons of virtue, and to do so for the sake of Disney is certainly a great honor; even in a task so small as arguing legal minutiae.

Be well, do good work, and keep in touch.

Does anyone know if there's a signing bonus?

To the contrary, the phrase “white knight” is deeply ingrained in the pathology of men’s rights activism, to the point that it isn’t actually being employed in any other context.

In other words, by choosing to use the language of that group, you convey to a reader that you are aligned with and in agreement with it. If you didn’t intend to do so, and that reads as thoroughly implausible in today’s day and age, don’t use the extremely specific dog whistles.

On 4/29/2019 at 10:34 AM, Caimheul1313 said:

The main difference being a personal modification only exists singly, while sold copies exist in greater number. I wasn't arguing against 3D printing, but rather that the "unofficial" disclaimer you pointed out is of limited protection for the company producing the model, especially when they are charging for the miniature, which is based on likenesses they didn't originate. Heck, I'm not even sure what if any alien appearances are owned by Disney and what have passed into public domain.

If they were providing the STL files for free, I THINK that turns into a different kettle of fish as "fanart" or something?

The main point is, this is a bit of a gray area, and the occurrence of these kind of thing is only going to grow as home 3D printing improves in quality and decreases in price.

If an individual wants to produce an item which is similar in likeness to an existing product and sell it for personal profit, they can. So long as it's not specifically sold as the original product. Scruffy Scoundrel may look exactly like Han Solo, but if the piece isn't called or sold as Han Solo, it's not Han Solo. It's Scruffy Scoundrel. If availability were more limited to things like conventions or locally, would it be less of a question for you?

2 minutes ago, Derrault said:

To the contrary, the phrase “white knight” is deeply ingrained in the pathology of men’s rights activism, to the point that it isn’t actually being employed in any other context.

In other words, by choosing to use the language of that group, you convey to a reader that you are aligned with and in agreement with it. If you didn’t intend to do so, and that reads as thoroughly implausible in today’s day and age, don’t use the extremely specific dog whistles.

9 minutes ago, qwertyuiop said:

If an individual wants to produce an item which is similar in likeness to an existing product and sell it for personal profit, they can. So long as it's not specifically sold as the original product. Scruffy Scoundrel may look exactly like Han Solo, but if the piece isn't called or sold as Han Solo, it's not Han Solo. It's Scruffy Scoundrel. If availability were more limited to things like conventions or locally, would it be less of a question for you?

Well anyone can do anything, that doesn’t make it not a copyright infringing act.

Moreover, although an individual act might not seem to be problematic in a vacuum, placed in context of the whole: the obvious ripoffs of other characters, created, marketed, and used in the context of SW games. It becomes a clear trespass on the rights of the copyright owners.

And it isn’t a question of defending any particular entity, this is applicable no matter how big or little the reach of the owner, indeed even more important with regard to individual artists who may have little to no capacity to defend their works otherwise.

@TauntaunScout said it best, so not much point in discussing further but seriously folks, you can't copyright shapes otherwise the owner of a cube would be a billionaire. Not really worried about Disney's copyright in any way shape or form, for all of the reasons already listed just like I'm not worried about other organization's ability to create themed ships/models

1 hour ago, Simonsays3 said:

@TauntaunScout said it best, so not much point in discussing further but seriously folks, you can't copyright shapes otherwise the owner of a cube would be a billionaire. Not really worried about Disney's copyright in any way shape or form, for all of the reasons already listed just like I'm not worried about other organization's ability to create themed ships/models

You CAN copyright appearances and specific arrangements of shapes (depending on jurisdiction), or else appearance rights wouldn't be a thing. Besides, what is a face but a series of shapes? What is all art except a unique assemblage of pre-existing shapes?

Given that tattoo artists retain the copyrights to art placed on people's bodies (as evidenced by some issues video game developers have been having with depicting athletes), even if that tattoo is something as simple as a cube, or even words, you totally can copyright your specific depiction of a cube.

8 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

You CAN copyright appearances and specific arrangements of shapes (depending on jurisdiction), or else appearance rights wouldn't be a thing. Besides, what is a face but a series of shapes? What is all art except a unique assemblage of pre-existing shapes?

Given that tattoo artists retain the copyrights to art placed on people's bodies (as evidenced by some issues video game developers have been having with depicting athletes), even if that tattoo is something as simple as a cube, or even words, you totally can copyright your specific depiction of a cube.

Had a nice detailed response, then it got lost to the refresh gods 😥

Highlights - not a law thread, low odds on anyone here being a copyright lawyer, exact configs are different from general shapes, sort of a silly thread, let people have their toys.

22 minutes ago, Simonsays3 said:

Had a nice detailed response, then it got lost to the refresh gods 😥

Highlights - not a law thread, low odds on anyone here being a copyright lawyer, exact configs are different from general shapes, sort of a silly thread, let people have their toys.

I've had that happen to me more times than I can count, my sympathies.

I'm not trying to say "tear them down!" (especially as an owner of "The Ghost Crew") I'm just saying they could possibly disappear since many are trying for exact configurations rather than just "general shapes," especially the ones that use the proper name. BUT as far as I know it is up to the copyright owner to take it to court/serve notice, so it doesn't really bother me, since Disney has a probably a small army of lawyers and interns for keeping track of copyright and looking for infringement. Also, after the whole " this monkey owns the copyright to this photo " lawsuit, and some of the extreme stretches in the recent Mechwarrior lawsuits (this vehicles has two arms, a head and two legs, so it MUST be this other vehicle with a completely different shape, but those same characteristics), I have a hard taking some parts of copyright law entirely seriously.

I do think this thread has run its course though, especially since as you said odds are low of any lawyers commenting, and this isn't a law forum, so it's just a bunch of us armchair amateurs speculating and theorising.

On 4/23/2019 at 6:42 PM, Sharkbelly said:

So, regarding the third party groups that are producing miniatures for Star Wars Legion, how is that NOT a copyrig  ht violation?

No one prints products "for legion". They print products "compatible with Legion". Copyright avoided.