What to do if you get counterfeit models
- Thread starter mr_maxime
- Start date
vanadium322
New member
Reporting them is great, but ultimately won't accomplish much. You can find any number of Chinese sellers (and a few Russian that I've seen) with low feedback scores selling things in droves. Losing their previous account doesn't really stop much when people are looking for specific minis and can't find them elsewhere. They'll get their feedback scores up high again pretty quick too, because most of their customers are perfectly aware that they're getting recasts, and don't care... a loss of detail is often worth it for 1/3 the price of the more expensive models, when the minis are to be used for wargaming rather than display painting.
I kinda go back and forth on how I feel about this stuff (not that recasting is okay, but that GW and FW should lower their prices to stop driving people to look for recasts), but like it or not, it ain't gonna stop.
I kinda go back and forth on how I feel about this stuff (not that recasting is okay, but that GW and FW should lower their prices to stop driving people to look for recasts), but like it or not, it ain't gonna stop.
Nicolas Rimbert
New member
Hi
Thanks for the info I was considering buying from this Caomao... but his large supply of Confrontation Black Paladins/Black Troll/Mountain Giant was a hint ... and I was wondering if they were recast...
Now you confirm it.
My only hope now: that CMON cast them again properly (I have found the Fianna on this site... I already own them however...)
Sincerely,
Nicolas
Thanks for the info I was considering buying from this Caomao... but his large supply of Confrontation Black Paladins/Black Troll/Mountain Giant was a hint ... and I was wondering if they were recast...
Now you confirm it.
My only hope now: that CMON cast them again properly (I have found the Fianna on this site... I already own them however...)
Sincerely,
Nicolas
mr_maxime
New member
I'd rather report him then do nothing at all lol.
I initially thought that he had so many becaus they might not have sold as well there. I have actually found some real rackham nib for cheaper than the recasts. My friend just received my predators of blood so I'll be able to make a comparison soon.
I initially thought that he had so many becaus they might not have sold as well there. I have actually found some real rackham nib for cheaper than the recasts. My friend just received my predators of blood so I'll be able to make a comparison soon.
mr_maxime
New member
The models aren't that cheap, it really didnt seem too good. I did trust ebay a bit more than I should, but then again you don't expect someone with 6061 reviews 99.2% of which are positive to be selling counterfeits, on ebay. It's not like I saw a FW kit for 1/3 of the price. All of his prices are near the same as they are for their real counterparts.
AHEM! A Tact and Diplomacy failure here!
Please be a bit more polite to other forum users.
Regardless of whether the originator could have done some research on here or not a lot of people have found out too late that they have bought "dodgy kit" in good faith. It happened to me a few years ago, with an honest looking eBay seller with good reputation. The trouble is there are people out in the world who will buy re-casts even knowing its counterfiet which shows in the number of sales the re-casters get.
But the manufacturing license is now held by Legacy (?) miniatures and they are the ones being de-frauded.
Last edited:
cfwheeler58
Member
This is a hot button topic for me.
Further to Mike's previous email...
The position that no one gets hurt is just crap.
Don't be naiive.
Re-casters who have success with one line of kits ( for whatever reason ) will
frequently use that revenue to attack other product lines.
This practice destroyed a number of legit, licensed producers of quality larger scale kits.
I know several sculptors who walked away from figure models because of this.
It's stealing.
Selfishly, I also don't care for the fact that this practice devalues what I already own ( legitimately )
and puts off prospective purchasers looking for quality.
I won't knowingly sell anything...at any price....to someone I believe may be a re-caster.
And by the way.....that sucks too.....
I did make some guy's day a while back. I re-sold a large kit which I had never inspected when
I bought it years ago. He identified it as a re-cast ( although a good one ).
I refunded his money and told him to keep it.
He painted it, loved it and tried to pay me a second time. Couldn't take it.
More careful now.
Further to Mike's previous email...
The position that no one gets hurt is just crap.
Don't be naiive.
Re-casters who have success with one line of kits ( for whatever reason ) will
frequently use that revenue to attack other product lines.
This practice destroyed a number of legit, licensed producers of quality larger scale kits.
I know several sculptors who walked away from figure models because of this.
It's stealing.
Selfishly, I also don't care for the fact that this practice devalues what I already own ( legitimately )
and puts off prospective purchasers looking for quality.
I won't knowingly sell anything...at any price....to someone I believe may be a re-caster.
And by the way.....that sucks too.....
I did make some guy's day a while back. I re-sold a large kit which I had never inspected when
I bought it years ago. He identified it as a re-cast ( although a good one ).
I refunded his money and told him to keep it.
He painted it, loved it and tried to pay me a second time. Couldn't take it.
More careful now.
kathrynloch
New member
I might get flamed for this but it is an honest, genuine question.
How can folks harp on re-casters when some of the "legit" miniature companies, especially those outside of the US sculpt and sell minis that are blatant ripoff's of copyrighted movie or art characters?
Now Knight Models, from what I understand, a license to produce Marvel characters, so I don't mean them. But there are a ton of models that take the artwork of Vallejo, Boris, and movie stars such as Eastwood, good ole Arnold, and several others that are the spitting image of copyrighted characters. But no one seems to have a problem with that. These are not only copyrighted works but several actors control rights to their "likeness". It sounds a bit strange at first but Tom Cruise, for example, is one of those actors who controls his likeness with an iron fist. And when you're easily recognizable because of your face, that makes sense.
I'm honestly curious where the line gets drawn at because to me it certainly seems like a double-standard. Please understand my intention is not to bash or insult anyone but I've always found this confusing. (Okay, flame suit on. lol!
)
How can folks harp on re-casters when some of the "legit" miniature companies, especially those outside of the US sculpt and sell minis that are blatant ripoff's of copyrighted movie or art characters?
Now Knight Models, from what I understand, a license to produce Marvel characters, so I don't mean them. But there are a ton of models that take the artwork of Vallejo, Boris, and movie stars such as Eastwood, good ole Arnold, and several others that are the spitting image of copyrighted characters. But no one seems to have a problem with that. These are not only copyrighted works but several actors control rights to their "likeness". It sounds a bit strange at first but Tom Cruise, for example, is one of those actors who controls his likeness with an iron fist. And when you're easily recognizable because of your face, that makes sense.
I'm honestly curious where the line gets drawn at because to me it certainly seems like a double-standard. Please understand my intention is not to bash or insult anyone but I've always found this confusing. (Okay, flame suit on. lol!
)
mr_maxime
New member
Probably because recasting is directly stealing someone's work and is often sold under the pretense that it is genuine. It dupes a customer into buying a lower quality product. Copyright ripoffs might be in poor taste, but can be indirectly profiting from the success of the more successful copyrighted material. It also may or may not be illegal.
kathrynloch
New member
Well there are items that would fall under "generic". For example, drug companies can't release generic drugs until after a certain amount of time - four or seven years, I believe. What I'm referring to is called a derivative work and copyright does cover it. There was a huge case that set the precedent.
If someone creates a painting, and I take a photograph of that painting, I don't own the copyright free and clear because my photograph is a derivative work. So I can't go around selling copies of the photograph. The same goes if someone creates a sculpture of that painting, they don't own copyright free and clear, the original artist does because its a derivative work.
Maybe I'm more sensitive to it because I'm a writer but I must disagree that copyright ripoffs are not illegal, derivative works are covered under copyright law and it is stealing. To be honest, if I got lucky and someone made a movie out of the book I wrote, then someone else created minis of those characters without my permission, I'd hit the roof. I'm not exactly positive of the release times but George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones HBO series came out and so did a lot of the merchandising...miniatures by Dark Sword among other things...at roughly the same time. I know George collects miniatures so this was a great idea to have the miniatures released because they are on the market and less likely to have someone else jump up and start making the characters under generic names.
One thing that must be said is that copyright law is murky at times and some things can only be settled in court - its not cut and dried. So it can be difficult to determine what falls under derivative work but there are some models I've seen that its like smack you in the head with a frying pan obvious.
If someone creates a painting, and I take a photograph of that painting, I don't own the copyright free and clear because my photograph is a derivative work. So I can't go around selling copies of the photograph. The same goes if someone creates a sculpture of that painting, they don't own copyright free and clear, the original artist does because its a derivative work.
Maybe I'm more sensitive to it because I'm a writer but I must disagree that copyright ripoffs are not illegal, derivative works are covered under copyright law and it is stealing. To be honest, if I got lucky and someone made a movie out of the book I wrote, then someone else created minis of those characters without my permission, I'd hit the roof. I'm not exactly positive of the release times but George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones HBO series came out and so did a lot of the merchandising...miniatures by Dark Sword among other things...at roughly the same time. I know George collects miniatures so this was a great idea to have the miniatures released because they are on the market and less likely to have someone else jump up and start making the characters under generic names.
One thing that must be said is that copyright law is murky at times and some things can only be settled in court - its not cut and dried. So it can be difficult to determine what falls under derivative work but there are some models I've seen that its like smack you in the head with a frying pan obvious.
mr_maxime
New member
I was saying that some ripoffs may still be legal while others are not. Take video game clones for instance. Torchlight is very similar to diablo, but isn't a line for line code copy. That's the issue I see with recasting, it is an attempt to copy work identically and pass it off as genuine. Derivative work is another issue and way more of a gray area than recasting.
kathrynloch
New member
Okay, I gotcha now. At least games have code to compare, it's either the same or it's not. Visual art must always be judged by the person viewing it.
What I am focusing on is the identical copies of well known characters. There was one of Arnold as Conan not too long ago. I remember seeing one identical to Clint in one of his movies and I want to say one of Steve McQueen but I might be mis-remembering that one.
Anyway, I don't want to beat a dead horse here. I understand what you're saying, I just wanted to make my point that I see a lot of those identical copies of famous actors/characters/artwork in the same vein. Maybe get some folks to think about that end of it.
No flaming involved Kathryn as you raise a valid point.
There is a company who have several 54-75mm figures which are very similar to characters from movies and TV shows, however there may be a "Loophole" in that these figures while showing a marked similarity are not identified as either the actor, the character or the movie title, therefore the association is left to be made by the viewer. It is also possible that a number of these figures have been made prior to the international agreement on copyright (The Berne Convention{?}) and as such may be outside the scope of such an agreement to retrospectively control.
I'm also kind of, but not 100%, sure that if a figure is similar, but not identical to a person or character then the sculptor/manufactor can claim there is no deliberate attempt of infringement.
Also remember that until the international agreement it was up to individual countries to legally recognise the copyrighted material or not.
mr_maxime
New member
Personally I mostly see no problem in that. There can be issues, but it's not the same as recasting.
cannon_fodder
New member
You know. . .as is. . .that would make a great Nurgle jump Marine...
Anyway, I think using someone's likeness is not truly stealing as long as the name is changed. Humans are a combination of various characteristics, that are genetic, so it is possible to create something that looks like someone, change the name, and have something unique, yet extremely similar.
Also, in the mini world, similarities between genuine models (not direct recasts, but creating a model to look like something already in existence) is not entirely disallowed if the names do not infringe on another companies rights.
WARNING!!!THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXAMPLE OF PRECEDENCE IN A SPECIFIC CASE, NOT THE BEGINNING OF A FLAMEWAR!!
In the recent chapterhouse vs. GW case, a lot of the legal problem was cleared up by Chapterhouse changing the names of their products to something other than a direct connection to GW. Another point was given to Chapterhouse studio when the courts decided that they were not in violation of copyright when they created a Carnifex variant kit since the actual kit did not exist yet. Even though it was a version of a kit produced by GW, since this specific variant was not in production, Chapterhouse was able to use the carnifex likeness and create the Tervigon (in this case, even the name is the same). This opened the door for many other companies to produce kits that were very similar to GW aesthetics, but remain a separate entitiy without any legal recourse.
My point here is making a version of a mini (or human face) isn't always illegal. Sometimes, we cross ethics with legality and it is not the same thing.
Having run off the rails for a minute, recasts are a blatant and lazy way to make a quick buck (schilling, Euro, pound, pick your currency) and is completely illegal. bottlegs are bootlegs; music, DVD, or mini makes no difference
Anyway, I think using someone's likeness is not truly stealing as long as the name is changed. Humans are a combination of various characteristics, that are genetic, so it is possible to create something that looks like someone, change the name, and have something unique, yet extremely similar.
Also, in the mini world, similarities between genuine models (not direct recasts, but creating a model to look like something already in existence) is not entirely disallowed if the names do not infringe on another companies rights.
WARNING!!!THE FOLLOWING IS AN EXAMPLE OF PRECEDENCE IN A SPECIFIC CASE, NOT THE BEGINNING OF A FLAMEWAR!!
In the recent chapterhouse vs. GW case, a lot of the legal problem was cleared up by Chapterhouse changing the names of their products to something other than a direct connection to GW. Another point was given to Chapterhouse studio when the courts decided that they were not in violation of copyright when they created a Carnifex variant kit since the actual kit did not exist yet. Even though it was a version of a kit produced by GW, since this specific variant was not in production, Chapterhouse was able to use the carnifex likeness and create the Tervigon (in this case, even the name is the same). This opened the door for many other companies to produce kits that were very similar to GW aesthetics, but remain a separate entitiy without any legal recourse.
My point here is making a version of a mini (or human face) isn't always illegal. Sometimes, we cross ethics with legality and it is not the same thing.
Having run off the rails for a minute, recasts are a blatant and lazy way to make a quick buck (schilling, Euro, pound, pick your currency) and is completely illegal. bottlegs are bootlegs; music, DVD, or mini makes no difference
mr_maxime
New member
From what I've read on games workshop's legal page, i think you can create models similar to theirs as long as you don't connect it to their ip in any way. We know that Gw's material was influenced by other people's IP, so making something similar isn't strictly copyright infringement. I remember something from English class that said something like there are no original ideas, everything is influenced by something else but plagiarism is 3+ significant words copied without quoting. In this case recasting is like a whole essay copied and pasted.
