MK1881 miniatures seems interesting

[GreedySmurf]

Isn't this a similar issue to when someone made (or had made) a load of block dice that were identical to the NAF/GW block dice.
As I recall there was a rush by some people to buy them before copyright issues kicked in. People weren't so outspoken against that.

But for the record i'm not condoning the artwork theft at all, it's disappointing and underhand.

There's a very interesting double standard both in BB specifically and in the wider mini's community on the whole IP point.

In this instance it looks like an almost direct copy of the original concept art from Mr Gallo, in which case I will give it a pass, much as I've done with other commercial ventures where I thought someone else's IP was being copied/taken advantage of. Apaprnetly though I'm in the minority as it's not that long ago we saw successful crowd-funding campaigns for mini's that were blatant copies of Star Wars and TMNT, and there's quite a lengthy list of other mini's that use other IP from all manner of mini companies.

[Greebo]

Isn't this a similar issue to when someone made (or had made) a load of block dice that were identical to the NAF/GW block dice.
As I recall there was a rush by some people to buy them before copyright issues kicked in. People weren't so outspoken against that.

But for the record i'm not condoning the artwork theft at all, it's disappointing and underhand.

There's a very interesting double standard both in BB specifically and in the wider mini's community on the whole IP point.

In this instance it looks like an almost direct copy of the original concept art from Mr Gallo, in which case I will give it a pass, much as I've done with other commercial ventures where I thought someone else's IP was being copied/taken advantage of. Apaprnetly though I'm in the minority as it's not that long ago we saw successful crowd-funding campaigns for mini's that were blatant copies of Star Wars and TMNT, and there's quite a lengthy list of other mini's that use other IP from all manner of mini companies.

Mr. Gallo is not the Lucas Arts, Disney or Nickel Odeon. If people use his concept without his permission, he simple work for free, than will close soon. As he written, he have only one way to make businesses, and is to show his works to let company know HOW he works, not to let company take his works for free.

[GreedySmurf]

Isn't this a similar issue to when someone made (or had made) a load of block dice that were identical to the NAF/GW block dice.
As I recall there was a rush by some people to buy them before copyright issues kicked in. People weren't so outspoken against that.

But for the record i'm not condoning the artwork theft at all, it's disappointing and underhand.

There's a very interesting double standard both in BB specifically and in the wider mini's community on the whole IP point.

In this instance it looks like an almost direct copy of the original concept art from Mr Gallo, in which case I will give it a pass, much as I've done with other commercial ventures where I thought someone else's IP was being copied/taken advantage of. Apaprnetly though I'm in the minority as it's not that long ago we saw successful crowd-funding campaigns for mini's that were blatant copies of Star Wars and TMNT, and there's quite a lengthy list of other mini's that use other IP from all manner of mini companies.

Mr. Gallo is not the Lucas Arts, Disney or Nickel Odeon. If people use his concept without his permission, he simple work for free, than will close soon. As he written, he have only one way to make businesses, and is to show his works to let company know HOW he works, not to let company take his works for free.

I don't want to derail this thread, but I will just say that, personally, and I'm only speaking for myself here, I don't draw a line between IP owned by a small one man operation or that owned by a large corporation. Making money off someone else's creation without due consideration to them is wrong. Yes Mr Gallo is not Disney or Lucasarts, but where is the cut off between, "oh he's small enough I shouldn't steal his ideas", to "that company is large enough now, that it's OK to steal their ideas"?

[Kikurasis]

And that's if you even consider this "stealing". I'm on the fence about these, simply because what's the time limit between releasing a sketch and the minis? 3 weeks? 3 months? 12 months? 5 years? 100 years?

Most figure makers won't release a sketch until it's at least being worked on. It's obvious to me that these were never being worked on by the owner of the sketch, as it's been years since the drawings were shown. Are we to say he's not going to make them at all? Did he give permission to someone else to create them? What's a reasonable amount of time to elapse before someone else is allowed to create from the sketch?

So many questions remaining for me to say whether I would or wouldn't get these. I *really* want a Dark Elf team, though.

[Darkson]

Greebo has confirmed these are being made (by Grebbo), And both he and the artist have confirmed that no-one but Freebies have the rights to use these drawings.

[Kikurasis]

Made when? 30 years from now? I'm not questioning the legality or morality of what was done. I'm questioning the "business decision" to put sketches on the internet *years* before actually producing the work and hoping that someone wouldn't come along in the meantime and do it. I'm also questioning the amount of time that would need to pass before the sketches become public domain to create a different work based off of it. In this case (my best guess) is that is it's legal. If I were to make a 3D sculpture based off the Mona Lisa, it may have been derived from it, but it is not a duplicate. I have a strong suspicion that this would be why most sculptors wouldn't release sketches until just before they are done. Please refer to question #1.

Just interesting to me, is all.

[Daht]

The other issue is the semi-generic dark elf look is easy to lawyer out of a copyright issue. If it had a specific action pose even, or distinguishing features that were not common dark elf theme.

Not saying using the art as "inspiration" for your own generic dark elf models isn't kind of being a dick to the artist, and I agree with those who would rather buy from greebo in this case, but legally the generic Elf look in a passive pose is hard to hold a copyright to.

[Darkson]

Made when? 30 years from now? I'm not questioning the legality or morality of what was done. I'm questioning the "business decision" to put sketches on the internet *years* before actually producing the work

There was a reason that Greebo's output slowed the last couple of years, that had nothing to do "not being bothered" or anything like that. I've heard on the grapevine what they were, but (if as I believe) those reasons are correct, only Greebo could say what those reasons are, and he can't.
Reading the thread on the pics from which these have been stolen (happy to call a spade a spade) it's obvious these were meant to be the next thing to be made.

[GalakStarscraper]

And I can confirm he was actively working on getting them sculpted because we offered to partner with Greebo to have the sketches produced and he said he unfortunately had to pass on the joint project proposal because he was already having them sculpted with another company. And I can confirm that the other company was definitely NOT MK1881 or Rolljordan.

And as someone in this business ... my opinion is this from looking at the 3-D sculpt. These figures are in my opinion not just inspired by Greebo's sketches ... they are a direct theft of them. Compare the blitzers ... they are identical ... not similiar ... not close ... i-d-e-n-t-i-c-a-l. And 3 years is definitely NOT enough for a piece of art to become public domain. I've had to pay royalities for art we've used that was much older than 3 years old for projects we've done.

[Kikurasis]

I've had to pay royalities for art we've used that was much older than 3 years old for projects we've done.

That would be direct uses of the art, which would require that, yes. Not sculptures made from the art.

I should maybe explain myself a little more than what my smartphone would allow me to input at work....

Some of you (Tom likely, along with others) are probably following the Games Workshop vs. Chapterhouse court case with varying interest. GW had decided to sue everyone (of which this website knows about, all-to-well) and sends out C&D letters like they are advertising pamphlets. Well, CH got some representation (pro bono, as this is likely a precedent-setting case) and fought back, taking it to court because GW thought CH was infringing on their IP. CH creates Space Marine bits (shoulder pads, etc.), Eldar terrian, etc., etc., etc. Everything is a COMPLETE rip-off from the GW IP. However, *all* of it is self-made and none is a recasting of GW miniatures. So, this went to court and, while the appeal is still pending, the TL;DR version of it is that as long as CH explicitly states that its wares are not from GW (as to not confuse the customer), they can sell it. They are completely basing everything off the 40k IP, but they are their own sculpts.

Straight to the point, this is no different than the CH vs. GW case. There is no mention that MK1881 is trying to pass these off as Greebo's miniatures. They created them using the Greebo drawings (without a doubt), but that's identical to Chapterhouse creating something based off the GW drawings. To me, according to the ruling on the CH vs. GW, what MK1881 has done is not illegal. Immoral, definitely, but not illegal.

[Darkson]

Except it's not the same, as Chapterhouse didn't copy any GW art. If they had, they wouldn't have won the case.

[Kikurasis]

lol, so what part of this or this or this or this or....

Nevermind. Apparently, you will never think it's the same thing, even though it is.

[GalakStarscraper]

Immoral, definitely, but not illegal.

To be clear ... I never made a statement about it being illegal. I'm not sure it is. Its the immoral part. I just personally don't buy from companies that do harm to others in our business.

To address a point of GreedySmurf ... I do separate the small mini businesses from Disney, GW and whoever owns the Turtles. Because there is a big difference in ability to defend themselves. Those companies actually have the ability to defend themselves if they have a problem with a parody or inspired by work. (see CMoN being stopped from making the Pulp Fiction parody figure for their Zombicide KickStarter as an example or WotC killing off most of the figures for the Tentacles and Eyeballs Kickstarter as being too much like a Beholder). But us little guys ... there is no way we can afford international lawyers to defend our stuff if we even have a case. At the end of the day ... we can only rely on the customers backing the companies that are making their business by doing the right thing and not backing companies that do not play nice with others even if their stuff is really cool looking.

Sad point is ... Impact! stopped showing our concept art for anything we work on for fantasy football because we've had another company steal them in the past and its just not worth it to us to have that risk. I truely wish that that was not the case. At the end of the day ... voting with your hard earned cash is the biggest lesson anyone can teach another company with if they disapprove.

[Darkson]

lol, so what part of this or this or this or this or....

Nevermind. Apparently, you will never think it's the same thing, even though it is.

Er, none of them are exact copies of GW artwork. Are they based on the general IP? Yes, and I've never said otherwise, but they are not exact copies of any specific artwork.

These are exact copies of specific artwork. They are not similar, they are exact.

That's the difference.

[Axtklinge]

They look a straight lift to me. My interest has just gone way down. Here's hoping that Greebo's concepts are equally dynamic as those will be the ones I buy, if any.

+1
If they wanted to pick up that specific artwork to produce minis, they should have contacted the artist about permission first. Period.
And even if it's not "illegal" to produce them, I'll just do my share not buying any.
As long as I'm aware of it, I won't ever support anything based on this kind of behaviour.