Athmospheric wrote:
Well, I have recently learned that some of the Exodus wars models are the work of Bob Naismith, no less than the guy who sculpted the first space marine. I find myself thinking that it would be a good idea, at least when it's not obvious (like Onslaught miniature models being made by Don Carr) to mention the sculptor of the miniatures in their descriptions.
A Lot of miniature collectors follow the work of specific sculptors closely, and I think many would be interested to know who are the artists behind the sculpts.
I do this already, especially in 15mm. When I see the work of Mark Mondragon or John Bear Ross for vehicles, or PF for infantry, I immediately make a point of looking. So I think it's a good idea if possible.
Athmospheric wrote:
The GW eldar look is quite distinctive, they got some of the best looking updated models in the last edition, and I think globally they look like one of the army people use as little proxy as possible in (at the opposite end I guess we'd find orks, where most people are OK using non-official models).
I don't know if it's allowed to even talk about it, but frankly concerning Eldars SHT and a few items like Thunderhawks and generally FW flyers, I'd be surprised if a recaster market doesn't appear sooner or later.
This is true. Eldar are distinctive enough that you really can't make a close-looking proxy as you might a Space Marine or Imperial Guard (whose vehicles are themselves thinly-veiled reproductions of classic historical designs).
I suspect that we'll almost certainly see recasters popping up. I've seen some already, both on ebay and in the black market. It's a weird situation, because while GW has pulled the designs, there is clearly still healthy demand for them. I can't condone using a recaster or violating their copyrights, but it's not surprising that it's happened.
Athmospheric wrote:
I guess everyone was terrified of GW at that time, but I really can't see on what ground they could even try to claim anything about a wholly original miniature.
Well, sadly that was before my time, or I'd be a proud owner of forumware. *Sad sigh*
However, keep in mind that prior to the Chapterhouse decision, GW argued that they owned not just specific models, but the look and feel of related models that might be used to play their games. They asserted claims and issued threats pretty aggressively, including in cases where they were unlikely to win. The most charitable way to put it was that their legal team was vigorously advocating on their client's behalf. Most defendants didn't have the money or connections to defend themselves; they go bankrupt on legal fees even mounting a successful case. Had Winston and Strawn not jumped in to represent Chapterhouse pro bono, they'd be one more independent shut down by Ghastly Werdna.
That decision set a powerful precedent that puts limits on what GW can assert as their IP, and gives guidance on what they can and can't do. We didn't have that three years ago.