Nothing beast Idea

[Dracomax]

Number one rule of IP law- if you do not fight to defend it, you are legally not allowed to later.

Again, not entirely true. US Copyright does not work that way, Trademark does. You can't make blanket statements like that, because it promotes disinformation, and causes people who would otherwise allow some use of their properties to hold onto them with a death grip.

---------- Post added at 07:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 AM ----------

The actual rule of thumb for fair use of copyright is "Does this take away money that would have otherwise been spent on the copyright holder's product"

[Mako]

In fairness, edonil didn't say copyright - he said IP, and that's a whole different ball game. From what I've heard from IP holders and lawyers, not defending it once means trying to defend it later becomes a case of 'why didn't you do it then but you want to now?' And a rather swift case dismissed in many situations...

[Dracomax]

WHich is why I tried to make a distinction. You can't apply blanket statements to IP, because there are different kinds of IP. They have to be defended differently, and they cover different things. ANd they vary from country to country.

Making blanket statements about IP does nothing to clear up what is, honestly, a terrible and labyrinthine system, or what rights the company or the consumer has to any given piece of property. All it does is make generalizations which serve only to muddy an already opaque system.

That being said, per the OP, in the US, fair use says that so long as Wyrd is not currently selling a clear version of the model, and the person doing so does not sell the product, and gives accreditation for the design, reproducing it in a different form than that being sold for personal, non-commercial use is probably okay. That being said, it's always better to ask for permission.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

[Mako]

On that I definitely agree. As someone who's looking into IP/patent law, it's a really complicated rats nest of stuff!

That's why I would never go beyond the general rule (and its not hard and fast, but it does seem to be pretty standard) of defend it first time, or struggle to defend it in future. It's just too complex for me to fully understand without the training!

Derailment and legalities aside, it could be interesting, but it's not particularly easy to get good quality clear casts. You'd be spending a lot of time and effort and money to do it...

[RagingRodian]

WHich is why I tried to make a distinction. You can't apply blanket statements to IP, because there are different kinds of IP. They have to be defended differently, and they cover different things. ANd they vary from country to country.

Making blanket statements about IP does nothing to clear up what is, honestly, a terrible and labyrinthine system, or what rights the company or the consumer has to any given piece of property. All it does is make generalizations which serve only to muddy an already opaque system.

That being said, per the OP, in the US, fair use says that so long as Wyrd is not currently selling a clear version of the model, and the person doing so does not sell the product, and gives accreditation for the design, reproducing it in a different form than that being sold for personal, non-commercial use is probably okay. That being said, it's always better to ask for permission.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

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 ----------

Yes, I'm aware of laws regarding the expiration of copyright.

Companies like Enigma and Chapterhouse get sued because frankly, they're companies. There's actual business to be done and anyone can get sued for pretty much anything, and any particular reason, even if in the end they turn out to be wrong. The main thing is that if you sue a company you can command substantial rewards in damages.

Sueing someone for creating a model and mold for personal use must deal with several speedbumps

1. The copyright holder must prove that the person indeed broke copyright

2. The copyright holder must prove some sort of injury, hardship or loss as a violation of the copyright.

3. The copyright holder must prove and locate the methods of copyright infringement, without violating the accused's 4th amendment rights

4. The copyright holder must prove that the accused possesses or possessed the item in question

5. The copyright holder actually needs to convince a lawyer to waste his time and money in order to persue the accused.

There are SEVERAL hurdles to jump through in order to sue an individual, number 5 being the most difficult. A mold and material will personally cost you at the most $200 or so. Since it's a personal object, you'll create maybe one or two. IP Lawyers typically start billing at 300$ minimum.

It's almost impossible to prove that the person even has the object and methods of infringement in question..if he hides it in a shoebox or even a sock drawer the copyright holder is more or less out of luck. It's not like the IP lawyers can order a search of the house over a 60$ infringement, or grab the accused's credit card history or something.

In the end, a legal battle would be a complete waste of everyone's time. Even if the copyright holder actually won, they would need to send someone to actually retrieve the objects in question, which would also actually cost more than the object being made.

Carrying out legal battles like these are probably not feasible for...well, any company, and would probably be the actions of an individual that is deranged, and angry with lots of money to spend on completely wasteful actions.

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!

[Linus Mcmold]

wow.. I remember this thread started as an idea how to make the Nothing Beast more like it's made of nothing and now it's almost three pages of lawsuits talk.

I really like EnternalVoids and Kalkrises ideas though. I hope I see that version of Nothing Beast somewhere.

[RagingRodian]

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.

[CRC]

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.

That's also not what the link says. The link says there are four criteria against with a potential infringement is measured. One of them is the amount of the original work copied, but that's not the only one, and you don't have to hit all four 100%.

While there is a list of things that the courts decided (way back in 1961) were non-infringing, that list is not exhaustive.

You seem to believe that you have to be making money in order to be prosecuted for copyright violation. You don't.

While this is true, it's also not what he said. You have to be having an "effect upon the potential market for the copyrighted work". It doesn't matter if you're making money. It matters if your use is reducing the amount of money the copyright holder is making.

This is why copying for personal use is allowed. You've already paid for the work, so the copyright holder isn't out your cash, and you're not reducing how much they expect from other people.

Copyright law, and IP law in general is a very complicated field. Take everything you read with a grain of salt, be cautious in what you say, because you can't assume other people are similarly cautious.

[Dracomax]

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.

Actually, It didn't. Piracy requires either not paying for it(which is not the case-he bought the miniature that was offered, and wanted to make a clear version therof for personal use. this is clearly a deriviative work for personal use, and so does fall under fair use for copyright purposes. Patent purposes may differ) Or disseminating copies therof without having first bought those copies from an authorized distributor(which could be the case, but nothing at all in the OP was in any way suggestive of that)

In any case, the primary rule to follow here is also the most common sense rule. Ask for permission. If they say it's okay for you to do so for yourself, then you are fine. if they say not to, then it's probably not worth legal trouble.

[RagingRodian]

That's also not what the link says. The link says there are four criteria against with a potential infringement is measured. One of them is the amount of the original work copied, but that's not the only one, and you don't have to hit all four 100%.

While there is a list of things that the courts decided (way back in 1961) were non-infringing, that list is not exhaustive.

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.

While this is true, it's also not what he said. You have to be having an "effect upon the potential market for the copyrighted work". It doesn't matter if you're making money. It matters if your use is reducing the amount of money the copyright holder is making.

This is why copying for personal use is allowed. You've already paid for the work, so the copyright holder isn't out your cash, and you're not reducing how much they expect from other people.

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 didn't. Piracy requires either not paying for it(which is not the case-he bought the miniature that was offered, and wanted to make a clear version therof for personal use. this is clearly a deriviative work for personal use, and so does fall under fair use for copyright purposes. Patent purposes may differ) Or disseminating copies therof without having first bought those copies from an authorized distributor(which could be the case, but nothing at all in the OP was in any way suggestive of that)

In any case, the primary rule to follow here is also the most common sense rule. Ask for permission. If they say it's okay for you to do so for yourself, then you are fine. if they say not to, then it's probably not worth legal trouble.

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.

Edited August 28, 2013 by RagingRodian

[RagingRodian]

While this is true, it's also not what he said. You have to be having an "effect upon the potential market for the copyrighted work". It doesn't matter if you're making money. It matters if your use is reducing the amount of money the copyright holder is making.

This is why copying for personal use is allowed. You've already paid for the work, so the copyright holder isn't out your cash, and you're not reducing how much they expect from other people.

I will give you that, it was more of an inference. However, you do seem to be stuck on the idea that money has to be involved for it to be an infringement. That isn't true, the copying itself is an infringement. Again, I would refer you to the government's copyright website:

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-infringement.html

Specifically:

"What Is Infringement?

Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights. Section 106 of the copyright law provides the owner of copyright in a work the exclusive right:

To reproduce the work in copies;

To prepare derivative works based upon the work;

To distribute copies of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

To perform the work publicly;

To display the copyrighted work publicly

In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Section 501 of the copyright law states that “anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner ...is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author.”

Note that you only have to "reproduce the work in copies". As I have already shown above, fair use or derivative works exceptions don't apply here. Making the copies is a violation!

Making copies is a civil matter, which means you can be sued even if no money is involved. This is shown on the same copyright page that I linked to above. I will quote an appropriate passage here:

What Do I Do If My Copyright Has Been Infringed?

"Serving primarily as an office of record, the Copyright Office is not charged with enforcing the law it administers. Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter, which the copyright owner must pursue in federal court. Under certain circumstances, the infringement may also constitute a criminal misdemeanor or felony, which would be prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice.,

If you do make money from the copies that you make the offense goes from a civil one to a criminal one, under federal law, which adds jail and fines into the mix. Here is a link to the specific laws that state that financial gain through copyright infringement is a criminal offense:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319

Like I said earlier, in the US making the copies in the first place is a violation. Making money off of it just puts you into a deeper hole!

---------- Post added at 10:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 PM ----------

To tothric- I see that you are also in Illinois. On the off chance that we see each other at Adepticon we will have to have a game and a drink!

[Dracomax]

You knopw what? this arguement isn't worth having. You've presented your facts, I've presented counterfacts, and We both are prretty firmly set inour beliefs. Not only are neither of us going to change anyone's minds, but all we will do is further obfuscate law, when I can almost gauruntee that neither of us are trained in such. Therefore, I'm done with this argument, before it becomes hostile.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Dracomax
trying to be less confrontational

[Evilbleachman]

Did I miss the Nothing Beast idea? lol

All this legal mumbo jumbo is giving me a headache. ^^

[RagingRodian]

You knopw what? this arguement isn't worth having. You've presented your facts, I've presented counterfacts, and We both are prretty firmly set inour beliefs. Not only are neither of us going to change anyone's minds, but all we will do is further obfuscate law, when I can almost gauruntee that neither of us are trained in such. Therefore, I'm done with this argument, before it becomes hostile.

Nah, no hostility. I simply took it as a challenging debate. We can still be friends.

I had a personal stake in how copyrights work in the miniatures business, thus my passion for the subject.

---------- Post added at 11:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

Did I miss the Nothing Beast idea? lol

All this legal mumbo jumbo is giving me a headache. ^^

Maybe the Nothing Beast has been clear this whole time!

[CRC]

Thanks RagingRodian, you've given me a lot to read about. Apparently I was right about how complicated and confusing this stuff is.

In particular, I didn't realise how finely broken out the law is. I've never really read into the copyright rules on sculpture before. Many of the exemptions don't seem to apply to it.

I really don't get the bit on "visual art", but that's reading for another day.

[RagingRodian]

Thanks RagingRodian, you've given me a lot to read about. Apparently I was right about how complicated and confusing this stuff is.

In particular, I didn't realise how finely broken out the law is. I've never really read into the copyright rules on sculpture before. Many of the exemptions don't seem to apply to it.

I really don't get the bit on "visual art", but that's reading for another day.

No problem. I just wish it wasn't such dry reading. But sometimes you have to point out the laws being broken and what the government has said regarding exemptions. Yeah, fair use really doesn't apply here.

I see you are in Canada, where the laws are a bit different. I would be interested in how copyrights work there compared to here. I do seem to remember Canada being much more lenient about enforcing copyright laws when it comes to file sharing, any truth to this?

I am guessing "visual art" would cover paintings? Or protects more traditional commercial art, like in old advertisements?

There was just a story on TMP about a company being hit by piracy from overseas. If they were in the US they would get slapped with criminal charges, but the violators are in another part of the world where copyright laws are not taken seriously. Here is the story if you are interested:

http://theminiaturespage.com/news/776070019/

Edited August 29, 2013 by RagingRodian

[tothric]

Think it's fair to say, it's silly to even think about the original idea on this post. Wyrd if you make a clear-cast Nothing Beast as an exclusive mini, I'd buy it.

Alot... maybe three times.

Possibly four...

I'll just try to brainstorm the best "nothing" paint job I can.

[CRC]

I see you are in Canada, where the laws are a bit different. I would be interested in how copyrights work there compared to here. I do seem to remember Canada being much more lenient about enforcing copyright laws when it comes to file sharing, any truth to this?

We have "Fair Dealing" which is a slightly different variant to fair use. It's more flexible, but restricted in different ways. Wikipedia can get you started once you know the term.

Until very recently, we didn't have any laws concerning the circumvention of technological protection measures, now (thanks to aggressive US lobbying) we do, and a lot of people aren't happy about that.

I wouldn't say we're more lenient about enforcing copyright laws, however, the studios and labels are in the US, so it's somewhat harder for them to sue Canadians. Our courts have often flatly refused to provide internet subscriber data to them without proof of infringement (which is a much higher standard than the US courts hold to). Also, our civil legal system is less out-of-control that the US version, so it's much harder to get the crazy damage awards that make the news.

Remember, copyright is a civil matter, so it's more a case of how much the companies are suing, than about how much the country is "enforcing".

The only reason I commented about "visual art" was there was a note about very small run sculpture (I think it was 200 or fewer copies) counting as a visual art.

[i_was_like_you]

The only reason I commented about "visual art" was there was a note about very small run sculpture (I think it was 200 or fewer copies) counting as a visual art.

Like the miniatures from Kingdom Death. NSFW...Or anywhere else.

[Zomnambulist]

Like the miniatures from Kingdom Death. NSFW...Or anywhere else.

Wow. I know absolutely nothing about this game or its world, but I want to play it.

[RagingRodian]

The only reason I commented about "visual art" was there was a note about very small run sculpture (I think it was 200 or fewer copies) counting as a visual art.

I found the definition of visual art for copyright law for the US on the same copyright.gov website:

A “work of visual art” is—

(1) a painting, drawing, print or sculpture, existing in a single copy, in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author, or, in the case of a sculpture, in multiple cast, carved, or fabricated sculptures of 200 or fewer that are consecutively numbered by the author and bear the signature or other identifying mark of the author; or

(2) a still photographic image produced for exhibition purposes only, existing in a single copy that is signed by the author, or in a limited edition of 200 copies or fewer that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.

A work of visual art does not include—

(A)(i) any poster, map, globe, chart, technical drawing, diagram, model, applied art, motion picture or other audiovisual work, book, magazine, newspaper, periodical, data base, electronic information service, electronic publication, or similar publication;

(ii) any merchandising item or advertising, promotional, descriptive, covering, or packaging material or container;

(iii) any portion or part of any item described in clause (i) or (ii);

( any work made for hire; or

© any work not subject to copyright protection under this title.25

Basically, because these are works for hire and are not 200 or less numbered limited editions they don't seem to qualify as visual art.

---------- Post added at 01:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 AM ----------

Wow. I know absolutely nothing about this game or its world, but I want to play it.

Eh.

Don't care for cheesecake for the sake of cheesecake, it is badly overdone.

The runs are so limited and expensive it would be hard to seriously start a game with them at this point.

While the sculpting and casting quality are good I don't think they understand female anatomy- it all falls apart at the hips. It looks like someone's upper body was stuck onto another, larger model's lower body. You have to give a woman hips but...whoa... I just don't care for it.

It also looks like it has an anime influence to it, and I detest anime style.

Just my opinion. Other people seem to like them.

[SoulG]

Make it of a different material that gives a different look and put it in a slightly different pose. Maybe make a few other bits different as well. BAM! Now its a conversion / custom job, which are expressly allowed in official tournements and thus endorsed. The fact that you got the material for your conversion by copying an existing mold is completely and totally impossible to prove, even if it is illegal. If anyone ask its a mold that you made yourself.

If someone asks how you made it, talk about working with the material rather than where you got the form from. If johnny law does actually knock down your door refuse to answer questions or say anything but "I would like to confer with my lawyer" until a lawyer is present. Then do whatever they say.

[RagingRodian]

Make it of a different material that gives a different look and put it in a slightly different pose. Maybe make a few other bits different as well. BAM! Now its a conversion / custom job, which are expressly allowed in official tournements and thus endorsed. The fact that you got the material for your conversion by copying an existing mold is completely and totally impossible to prove, even if it is illegal. If anyone ask its a mold that you made yourself.

If someone asks how you made it, talk about working with the material rather than where you got the form from. If johnny law does actually knock down your door refuse to answer questions or say anything but "I would like to confer with my lawyer" until a lawyer is present. Then do whatever they say.

Again, it is tacky to talk about pirating a miniature on the manufacturers website.

It is actually easier to prove that a plastic model is pirated. All you have to do a scrape a little bit of paint off of the model- if it is not the plastic the model originally came in underneath it is fake. It is harder to do this with metal recast in metal. If someone refuses this test at an official event you can call in the authorities.

You also overlooked the original idea, which was to recast the model in clear plastic, making it obvious that is was pirated.

Saying it is a mold you made yourself is admitting to copyright violation. Now I don't speak for Wyrd here, but I am willing to bet they look favorably to conversions of models they made, not so much so on conversions of pirated miniatures.

[Zomnambulist]

Eh.

Don't care for cheesecake for the sake of cheesecake, it is badly overdone.

The runs are so limited and expensive it would be hard to seriously start a game with them at this point.

While the sculpting and casting quality are good I don't think they understand female anatomy- it all falls apart at the hips. It looks like someone's upper body was stuck onto another, larger model's lower body. You have to give a woman hips but...whoa... I just don't care for it.

It also looks like it has an anime influence to it, and I detest anime style.

Just my opinion. Other people seem to like them.

An understanding of female anatomy is something that a lot of art styles lack. *cough cough Hawkeye Initiative cough*

The appeal in this is similar to the appeal of Silent Hill creature design for me. It's not intended to be realistic, it's a hyperbolic expression of a core concept (in this case, a wet nurse - it doesn't have to serve any purpose but to feed, and it is exceptionally well equipped to do just that). I am sure the expense and limited availability of players and pieces would make starting now an impossible task, I was just expressing my appreciation for creative monster design and the taste of lore that was delivered with it. Art style and lore are my primary motivations for playing most games though.

[tothric]

I still think it's worth noting that the moment Piracy was brought up, I kinda dropped the idea. :-P It's you silly people who keep bringing it up.

I didn't even think on that level when I thought "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if the Nothing beast was see through? All it does is destroy light to make itself visable and known to those who it cares to have see it."

However, I do like the idea of creating a 100% original mold, and then filling it with see-through plastic resin, stating this is my nothing beast...

Might have to do it really simply, because i"m not a sculptor... defiantly couldn't do the Tenticle'd awesome that is the epic sculpt Wyrd produced.