Copyright/legal question...

[DaN]

I am thinking of making a range of my own bases for sale on Ebay, and I just wanted to check that I am not going to infringe any copyright laws etc...

As fas as I understand it, I would fine using non-copyrightable images, such as the double-rose or the fleur-de-lys as used by GW\'s Sisters of Battle, as long as I didn\'t specifically advertise the item as being FOR Sister\'s of battle...

But things like the 40k Double-headed eagle, etc etc would be copyright.
(Although a generic eagle, like the German/American emblem would be fine)

Please can someone let me know Cheers

 

[squig hunter]

Well, the double headed eagle was originally a roman design so I don\'t think you\'d get in any trouble for that.

Squig

 

[DaN]

But the Imperial WH40K Eagle is VERY distinctive. It\'s been around since the Rogue Trader 1980s version, so I definately won\'t be using that one lol

 

[Sonnyslayer]

Just call it a double headed Hawk

 

[hakoMike]

Check out the coat of arms of the Romanovs for a different looking double headed eagle... it doesn\'t resemble the GW one very closely, but still is clearly a double headed eagle.

 

[Dragon Forge Design]

Things like the gothic cross or the fleur-de-lys are symbols from history..your fine using them. Your fine doing a double headed eagle of your own design or something historical..yourNOT fine with using Games Workshops copyrighted double headed eagle design, that would be IP Theft. The same goes for any chapter badge or Icon that they created.

 

[JakeSh]

Yes, the double headed eagle is a symbol of the Holy Roman Empire of the middle ages (13-1500\'s-ish). I don\'t believe it was an actual Roman-era design, but I could be wrong.

Regardless, I see this stepping on their ridiculous IP views no matter what. Making mini bases with symbols so close to theirs, even if they are historic symbols, would still piss them off. The context of the design, and the implied use would probably be too much.

 

[DaN]

Well, it\'s like I said - if I make a base with a fleur-de-lys or a tudor rose - I could market them as historical bases. And any other bases would be completely different - like ur generic wooden planks etc etc

 

[lono]

The Imperial eagle has the distinctive one head with an eye, one head without though, so you can\'t go copying that one and claiming it\'s a symbol of the Roman empire.

I\'d say this is just a matter of common sense. If GW have copyrighted/trademarked it then don\'t use it, if they haven\'t then go ahead!

 

[vincegamer]

If you\'re just doing bases with traditional/heraldic symbols I don\'t think you\'ll have a problem.
If you sculpt a woman in armor with fleur de lis theme, you will have a problem.

perhaps you should post a pic of a prototype to let us see what you\'re talking about.

 

[Undave]

Don\'t forget GW bases have a GW copyright lol

 

[War Paint]

I would be very careful on this as it is not just into copyright. You will be treading into the whole mess of intellectual property which can encompass derived designs.

For a start I would check out the legal section on GW site (Apologies can\'t acces from work to give link)

Remember, GW have a very aggressive policy on their IPR and will pursue it (Understandable to a large extent as core of their business). Also re-read the eBay listing rules in detail as it\'s easy to fall foul without intent and still get canned (Experience here). Just because another seller is still doing something doesn\'t mean its correct or legal. Ebay rely on the stool pidgeon approach as they operate with minimum staff. It just hasn\'t been reported

If in doubt, seek professional advice

Hope you do well and let\'s me have a look when there done as good idea

cheers

 

[DaN]

Well, thanks to all so far for the tips.

I have a few bases done already, and none of those have anything which could be construed as GW property, so I\'ll take some pics and post them here when I can, and I\'ll also post any that I\'m unsure of...

If I can\'t sell those ones I\'ll just have to use them myself

First base:

Second base:

(I\'m aware that the base OF this base Is GW, but I will casting from this, so the mould and any casts will be entirely scratch made)

 

[Aidan K]

I beleive making a cast of a GW base, even altered, for resale is illegal. I may be wrong though.

 

[shags j]

One option would be to do what you have done, but rather than cast the whole base, just cast a bit to be glued on top of the base.

I have been considering this with another game system. I think it works a treat (and you use less resin as well).

 

[DaN]

Hmm - well if the base ITSELF also causes problems, I\'ll just have to have the bases flat (As suggested by Shags (Cheers ))

Or, for bases with extra depth (Like pipes, craters, etc) I\'ll just have to build the base up myself - I\'m sure I can find something thick enough to cut to size with using expensive GS or plasticard

 

[Sand Rat]

Sculpy perhaps?

 

[Dragon Forge Design]

well so far GW or any other company has made no clames to anyone \"Using\" their bases to sculpt on and cast in resin. In reality many slotas on the market have no copy right in them at all and are considered generic. Fill them with putty and well no one will ever know.

As for getting into the resin base market.. good luck.. theres all ready a ton of guys already doing it includeing myself and to be honest the business isnt that big.

 

[Onis Lair]

I thought about doing this myself, in fact picked up the mold and resin materials i need. However i have no intention of selling bases, as DFD said a ton of people do it already, i just have no desire to individually base 300 plus figures one at a time when i can cast a bunch of the bases i need from one master base.