RagingRodian

Ever try applying it with a wet brush? Granted, I haven't used it in years and that was when we just used powdered chalk. I remember getting some cool rust effects with a damp brush or "dry brushing" it onto areas that should be dirty. Finish up, blow hard on it like you would with freshly glued static grass, and hit it with a very fine layer or two of spray varnish to set it in place. Do current commercial weathering powders work the same way? Or are there different tricks to them? I haven't used them in years because I have gotten to the point that, if I want it rusty or dirty, I just paint the effect on. But if weathering powders are easier than chalk dust I may give them a try.

I think we are on the same page. Over the years I have heard a few people just say that they think plastic is always easier. It really does depend on the model. A bad casting is also a bad casting regardless of the medium, and you shouldn't have to be using putty milks on anything to smooth them out, that is madness! Unfortunately, metal casting is more of an art than plastics, and you do run into a few lazy casters/bad mold makers. Back when I used to make molds and cast figures my rule of thumb for any one that I worked with was "if you have any doubts about what you are about to pack, throw it back in the pot, no questions asked". It rarely came up. Sorry, I get a little nostalgic for the good old days....

Actually, it was exactly what the link said. Per the original link: "Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work" "The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.” Note a few things here: Fair use does not say that you can use the whole original, just parts. By default this means you cannot copy a whole model under the terms of fair use. Fair use rulings HAVE specified that the work is being used for educational, reference, or critical use. Nowhere does it say you can just make a copy of something in its entirety for personal use. If you were allowed to do this why would publishers have to put "permission to photocopy for personal use" on certain reference pages in books if they wanted to give you permission to copy them? If you are going beyond the guidelines listed you had better bring a good lawyer to court. You are forgetting a key point- you are depriving the copyright owner the ability to charge you for multiple copies of their work. So yeah, the copyright owner is out your cash. You can find an easy reference to reproduction of a copyrighted work being illegal in another media that has it's rights routinely violated- movies. Pop in a DVD and actually read the FBI disclaimer- it specifically spells out the reproduction itself is illegal and punishable by jail time and fines. Let me give you another excellent example that also applies. I am sure that, at some point, most of us have attended a wedding that had a professional photographer. The photographer owns the copyrights to the pictures that he takes (yes, even if you are in the picture or you hired him) and it is his right to charge you for any copies of pictures you want. Now, try to take one of those professional photos to the drug store to have duplicates made- you will be refused because only the owner of the copyright (the photographer) has the right to make copies of their work. No, it doesn't matter if the copies you requested are for your own use. ---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:01 PM ---------- Actually, it did. Because we have the reference, I would direct you to the following link: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#howmuch Specifically, this: "How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work? Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works." That pretty much straight out says that you cannot create a clear version of a Nothing Beast without permission. Also good: How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission? "Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians." ....which spells out the fact that you can only use a limited amount of the original under fair use. That by itself says you can't mold a whole Nothing Beast and call it fair use. This should finally put the issue to rest.

I never got a processing email, I just looked my order up in the online store and that is what the update said. I did, however, get an email today saying FedEx has my gremlins and that email had a handy tracking number. Looks like there will be gremlin nogoodery this weekend!

I like them! Well done!

That is why I find it amusing that people just assume that plastics are easier to put together than metals. Due to the flexibility of the molds used for metals vs the rigidity of plastic dies you can more easily make a model in one piece or a minimum of pieces in metal. Not saying there isn't some poorly designed pieces in metal, just stating that plastic=easy to assemble isn't always true. There are also, thanks to the flexibility of metal molds, textures that come out better in metal, fur and chainmail being typical examples.

I would add that I will never use GW spray varnish again. I had a few cans that ruined freshly painted models that I was trying to seal. Never again!

Same here. As much as I hate GW getting any of my money they do make a great primer.

I am totally liking Pere as Disco Gremlin!

Well, sure. The thread started out as ways to pirate Wyrd's miniatures, although I doubt the OP realized that and was going in with the best of intentions. If you want a clear Nothing Beast, but not violate any copyrights, you could always make one from scratch (not remolding the current one). Mold your scratch built one, cast it in clear resin, and you are all set. This is covered under fan art, which is also why your kids can draw pictures of Micky Mouse and people can sew their own Doctor Who costumes without being sued.

Yeah, I ordered enough to get a Miss model. I figured a two week window for shipment was fair, and while I could have gotten the models elsewhere I wanted to order direct from Wyrd in order to give them a larger share of the profits as well as pick up a cool limited model. Sadly I just checked on my order. No emails, and it just says that it was processed on August 15th. That doesn't sound promising, I was hoping to dispense some Gremlin-based justice on Sunday......keep your fingers crossed just in case!

That is not what your link says. Fair use is what allows you to use parts of a work as a reference, teaching lesson, or in a review as long as you give credit where credit is due. That link says nothing about being free to reproduce somebody else's work in a different material simply on the grounds that the manufacturer doesn't make the original in that material. Fair use also let's you use only part of a referenced work, not copy the whole thing. ---------- Post added at 05:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:04 PM ---------- May I ask, if you were aware of the expiration of copyrights why did you use an example of something that was clearly in the public domain? Again, you are laboring under a few misconceptions. You seem to believe that you have to be making money in order to be prosecuted for copyright violation. You don't. Recall what happened with Napster and other file sharing services in the US a few years back. People were rampantly violating copyrights and nobody was making any money. Nonetheless, the recording industry was able to successfully sue people for damages because they never payed the IP holders for copies of the copyrighted materials they had in their possession. That is loss of income. That is the basis for legal action. Companies aren't the only ones vulnerable to legal action if they break copyright laws. You believe that finding a lawyer willing to take your money is difficult, especially when you have a legitimate case. Obviously this is wrong. You also don't seem to understand the purpose of warrants. Yes, if there is probable cause your home can be searched and evidence can be confiscated by the police. That is their job. You don't think bringing legal action against copyright violators is worthwhile unless you are getting a pile of cash out of it. As has been pointed out by others you can sue for income you were cheated out of. More importantly, again as others have pointed out, if you knowingly allow people to violate your copyrights you will have a progressively more difficult time defending yourself later- this is easily worth taking people to court! Companies like Wyrd must keep control of their IP if they want to continue to exist. Finally, you appear to mistaking "getting away with it" as being the same as "not illegal". Yeah, if you make a copy of a Nothing Beast in your garage and keep quiet about it you will probably never be caught or suffer repercussions. But that doesn't make it legal, it doesn't mean you didn't violate somebody else's rights, and it doesn't mean that it is a good idea to talk about it on the manufacturer's website!

Sounds like a miscast, metal shouldn't do that. Did you get the models exchanged?

Quirks?

For models of infantry or cavalry size, metal. Anything bigger, plastic. There does come a point where metal just gets too heavy. Why metal vs plastic? Both have good looking models. That is a wash. You can say plastic goes together easier than metal...but that too I would consider a wash. Malifaux plastics have many fiddly parts that all need to be cleaned and glued together. Metal cleans faster,and many models are one piece castings so you can start playing or painting quicker. You may want to pin a few parts, but if you have five minute epoxy on hand you can often skip pinning altogether. So yeah, a wash. Metal is far better for limited run or special edition miniatures. The molds are cheaper and easier to make and the turnaround time from master to production models is short, so less of the manufacturing costs get passed on to the consumer. Win! Metal has durability and intrinsic value. Plastic, once snipped, assembled, and painted, has very little resale or repaint value. My metal models, should I choose to resell or repaint them, can easily be stripped and reused. Easy peasy. Huge bonus. Finally, a personal note. I have been lucky enough to meet and learn from some of Wyrd's sculptors. I can, for example, buy a Paul Muller sculpt and feel like I am supporting a sculptor that I admire. I can't say the same about the anonymous digital renderer for plastic models. I can also, as someone that used to make his living making molds for and casting tin figures, appreciate the skill that goes into making metal figures, and I can appreciate that they are made in America. Can't say the same about plastics. Don't get me started on Finecast. Suffice to say that I am glad that Wyrd isn't going that route.

I had order #16498, my first faction for Malifaux. An Ophelia box, slop haulers, young Lacroix, Bayou Gremlins, a Gremlin arsenal and fate deck. All it says that it has been processed. I am hoping to get them by the end of the week so I can play over the holiday weekend. One of my other buds ordered our rule books. Sadly, even though I was at Gen Con Wyrd brought no metal crews to sell. None. I ended up playing a demo of the new rules, then had to go back and mail order what I wanted from my hotel room. I had been waiting a few weeks to buy my gremlins until Gen Con so I could start playing the game with my buds with the release of the new rules. I was a bit disappointed that there were no metal crews, even though metal crews make up the majority of the models for this game. I understand they will be transitioning over to plastics, but in the mean time people need models to play with!

Ah, you are referring to the lawsuit the Chapterhouse rightfully won against GW. That was different as they were making compatible accessories to GW's models, not copying the parts themselves. You can make things that are compatible with somebody else's IP as long as they are clearly labelled, this was also seen when Kenzerco made Kingdoms of Kalamar 4E compatible, but not a 4E product. In no case did any existing IP get duplicated, that will get you clubbed like a baby seal in court! This is exactly what happened in the 90's when Enigma tried making accessories that used parts of GW's models- GW was able to seize all of their offending molds. I worked at the GWUS headquarters at the time and I actually saw the molds being brought in. Good times. As for the old masters example, keep in mind that IP does eventually expire and go into public domain. This is why anyone can make Alice in Wonderland movies without being sued by the Carroll estate. But IP takes decades to expire, and Wyrd won't lose theirs into public domain any time soon. You are operating under one of the most common misconceptions regarding piracy with miniatures-it is legal as long as you don't sell it. This is incorrect. Making copies and then selling them just puts you into a deeper hole if you get caught and taken to court. Keep in mind too that if, as you say, you can't enforce IP rights for copied objects that aren't sold why can companies still sue for lost revenue and damages?

That is casting using a different process, and it does have a higher error rate. These plastics are injection molded, and the parts are generally thinner and less prone to bubbling errors. The considerations here would be whether people would care if everything on a sprue is clear, or if doing another run of a limited edition model would be to make people who want a clear version happy considering the cost of doing the original version. From a collector's point of view consider how the model would look assembled. Wyrd plastics are nice when assembled, but have a high "is this really a separate piece?" factor. You may end up with an assembled clear model that has glue lines showing where all of the parts had to be stuck together.....

Granted copyrights vary overseas but the opposite is true here. Casting material is irrelevant, whether the model is production is irrelevant, whether you intend to sell it is irrelevant, the act of copying the model in the first place is a violation unless you have permission. I don't recall seeing "permission to copy for your own use" on Tara's box or sprues. It is called a "copyright" for a reason! As has been shown repeatedly throughout history, if Wyrd doesn't defend their IP they start to lose control over it, and their IP is what allows them to continue to exist as a company. Granted, people routinely violate copyrights. You probably won't get caught unless you do something stupid. If you have a good lawyer, you may even be able to argue that you are making a back up copy. But it would be foolish for Wyrd to give any kind of assent to people pirating their miniatures on their own forums!

Be careful, you are straying into IP violation territory. Molding and recasting models, even if you never sell it, is generally looked down on, especially on the copyright holder's website....