Is 3D printing scratch building or something else?

[Builder]

I have been playing 40K since Rouge trader, I enjoy the game, love the hobby and the community. About a year and a half back I got a 3D printer, since then I have designed several playing pieces that can be used as stand ins for some of the larger pieces that can be used in the game.

In my gaming group we were discussing the moral (not legal) implications of printing gaming pieces. Three opinions were expressed:
1) 3D printing is the same as scratch building
2) 3D printing is copying someone else’s work
3) 3D printing is something completely new

To put this in context, I am not scanning and printing, but designing models in sketch up and then printing them. The process takes quite some time. With my space elf model racking up about 20 hours of design time, and each print takes about three days. The whole process feels very satisfying, and scratches my scratch build itch nicely. However, the difference is that where scratch building a thunder hawk took me 40 hours, and left me with one thunder hawk, scratch building these models takes roughly the same amount of time, but I can produce many models.

I will not share my design files (for several reasons), but I can imagine that it will not be long before others do. Even a brief trawl of thingiverse shows that early legal interventions from GW has not dissuaded the 3D printing community at all. I would anticipate that over the next two to three years many communities will include people who will print a portion of their army. How will you feel about this?

6412
6414
6409
6410
6411

[Xaric]

3d printing i would say in about 3 years everyone will have them and yes GW will go mental :D

[Kaptain Badrukk]

When you make something A)entirely for yourself and B)using your own design;
Then yes it IS a scratch build.
The minute you deviate from any of those points you're walking onto the territory of IP infringement, and then you may as well be re-casting.
Once that line is crossed then it's bad times.
I think your work is fantastic BTW, and it's my plan to get a setup like yours one day, but remember that you're walking a VERY fine line.

[euansmith]

"Garlic bread - it's the future, I've tasted it"

Roll on affordable, high quality 3D printers.

For professional figure manufacturers they need to come up with a fast may of separating miniatures from their support material, otherwise 3D printing will struggle to become a large scale production method. However, for home use and the kind of runs generally carried out by small resin producers it should be okay. It would mean that producers would be freed from carrying a lot of inventory and would be able to print off as many figures as are needed by any order.

[Builder]

When you make something A)entirely for yourself and B)using your own design;
Then yes it IS a scratch build.
The minute you deviate from any of those points you're walking onto the territory of IP infringement, and then you may as well be re-casting.
Once that line is crossed then it's bad times.
I think your work is fantastic BTW, and it's my plan to get a setup like yours one day, but remember that you're walking a VERY fine line.

I agree Badrukk, the line is fine, and I wonder if it had been defined. I also have the same view on scanning being akin to re-casting.

I worry that if the line is defined by lawyers we will end up with something unworkable. For me it's defined by what is acceptable in my gaming group, and the larger gaming community, as this dictates what I can play with, and what I get to show people. Thanks for your feedback :-)

[Popsical]

I think within 10 years there will be a BIG change in IP and copyright laws regarding 3d printers.
The potential for crippling the wargames industry is nasty.
The other option will be the licencing and restriction of high quality 3D printer sales, so that only licenced companies can buy the top spec models.

[Rev. Tiberius Jackhammer]

I think within 10 years there will be a BIG change in IP and copyright laws regarding 3d printers.
The potential for crippling the wargames industry is nasty.Ehhhh, I dunno. Keep in mind mass production techniques are also advancing. Home 2d-printers never destroyed the book industry for much the same reason.

The other option will be the licencing and restriction of high quality 3D printer sales, so that only licenced companies can buy the top spec models.Nopenopenopenopenope.

[Bigred]

Poll added

[Deadlift]

For me it's something completely new but the end product is kind of the same. I love your models btw Builder. Obviously influenced by GWs products but then how many scratch built models have we seen that also have their design based on GWs. We've seen some very cool scratch built titans here on BoLs. Some may use plasticard and some may use a 3D printer. Ultimately the result is the same it's just the construction method that differs. I personally have no issue with players making their own models which ever method the choose. Some of the larger forge world models are just too unobtainable for most and if someone decides to put some time and effort in to make their own for their own personal use. More power to them. But when somebody starts mass producing stuff to sell on, well that's where I draw the line.

[Adam Wilson]

It falls in the same category as resins do, it all depends on what you are making. It isn't the resin or the 3D printer that is in question, it is the sculpt or design. the 3D printer or resin are just ways of duplicating. Just like a regular copy machine or printer, your plagiarizing the original document or your are printing/copying your original work. GW stopping persons from using/buying 3D printers would be like them trying to stop people from using/buying scanners because people scan the rule books.

[LoyalistLunaWolf]

GW is driving their community towards things like 3D printing, with how much they charge for their models these days there will be a point rather soon where it will just be easier to print your own. I may not condone it but it is not hard to get a scan or make a mold of a GW spur and bam, look at my Forgeworld marines at 1/4th the cost.

[Vautravers]

I think in a few years the main source of income of the model companies will be renting 3d models for the user to print at home.
Archives you can use for a few hours and then they get autodeleted.

Let's see: imagine that the speed of your home 3D printer allows you to print 10 models/hour. Then renting the 3D model could last 2 hours for 10$ hour.
The owners of the IP would get their money and you could print the miniatures you want at home.

Of course they could still sell miniatures at stores (of higher detail and better materials), but I think in less than 10 years everything will work this way.

[Cactus]

I suspect that GW (and other game makers) will eventually sell you "official licensed" 3D plans to print your own models at home so you can have official GW product. Then they'll sell you chapter specific shoulderpads, tank symbols and such as an upgrade.

They only way they can win this battle is to play along.

[Tigris]

It's an odd one. It can be a mix of all three, but no different to anyone who as a youth (In my case a long time ago) We could by a mould, an few ounces of lead and a melting kit and make our own Harryhausen skellies and then learned how to make simple plastercast moulds. If it's for you a few shoulder pads here a torso there, no issue - If you start trying to carry an obvious no tweak figure as original, nah.

It'd be interesting to instead of buy a box of GW astartes just down-load a file for X $ or £ pop it in the printer and bam! Copyright law will be an interesting watch.

[madrox]

If you play 40k only with friends then GW will never know what you do. You can buy a simple 3d scanner (HP) and scan your models and then print them...done.

If GW keeps going down the path they are I will have no problems printing stuff if I want it. But sooner or later I'll tire of the whole hobby and move onto something else.

I think 3d printing will be quite a paradigm shift for many industries, including gaming for sure.

[stargasm]

As the images in this thread have straight up coppied the style and design of existing miniatures, i answered option B.

I have no idea on laws about this kinda thing, but i guess whatever you print, if you make the designs and only use them for personal projects and don't share/ proffit then i guess you'll be fine either way.

[tankbusta]

THe poll needs an "It Depends" option.

If Scratchbuilding is usually defined as taking raw material, plastic card as an a example, and cutting or shaping it to make a part, shoulder pad, helmet, symbol, or entire vehicle of your own unique design, so that you would scan and 3-D print to have several finished pieces, that's OK, IMO.

I don't confuse Scratchbuilding with kitbashing, taking numerous formed parts from various kits or aftermarket vendors to make a unique edition of a vehicle. As an example, using MKI Land Raider Sponsors on a MKII hull. The parts are obviously IP, and I"d have a hard time justifying 3-D printing them unless they were parts that were no longer available for sale.

3-D Printing is new technology, but the principle is the same as it is for resin casting, even if GW wants to charge exorbitant amounts for minis, and won't allow bitz orders, it is still theft to make copies of something they have sole legal right to sell.

That said, I am intereted to see how the gaming industry, and the 3-D printing industry will hash this out, looking at the legal battles over cassettes, VCR's and MP3's it will probably be ugly, and satisfy no one completely in the end.

[Nabterayl]

THe poll needs an "It Depends" option.

If Scratchbuilding is usually defined as taking raw material, plastic card as an a example, and cutting or shaping it to make a part, shoulder pad, helmet, symbol, or entire vehicle of your own unique design, so that you would scan and 3-D print to have several finished pieces, that's OK, IMO.

I don't confuse Scratchbuilding with kitbashing, taking numerous formed parts from various kits or aftermarket vendors to make a unique edition of a vehicle. As an example, using MKI Land Raider Sponsors on a MKII hull. The parts are obviously IP, and I"d have a hard time justifying 3-D printing them unless they were parts that were no longer available for sale.

3-D Printing is new technology, but the principle is the same as it is for resin casting, even if GW wants to charge exorbitant amounts for minis, and won't allow bitz orders, it is still theft to make copies of something they have sole legal right to sell.

That said, I am intereted to see how the gaming industry, and the 3-D printing industry will hash this out, looking at the legal battles over cassettes, VCR's and MP3's it will probably be ugly, and satisfy no one completely in the end.
This. The question is not how, but what. Whether you use a 3D printer, a block of resin and a chisel, or manipulate individual atoms with the power of your mind to create a model is irrelevant. The question is whether you own the copyright to the model (because, for instance, you designed it yourself), somebody else does, or nobody does.

[Baneblade]

It is piracy pure and simple. Unless a permit or licensing ploy is used, a 3D printed version of a GW model is theft. No way around it.

[Nabterayl]

I mean, let's be clear here ... scratchbuilding any GW model is theft, no matter how you do it. Making a Thunderhawk out of cardboard and household items isn't magically legal because you used cardboard and household items instead of a 3D printer. Scratchbuilding a GW-inspired model is [probably, depending on the specifics] not theft. How you make the model is irrelevant. The question is what you're making.

[TheKennanator]

My entire Gue'vessa Tau Axillery army was kitbashed between Tau and Cadians. I kitbashed the special weapons out of several crisis suit weapon systems. I spent upwards of 8 hours per special weapon manufacturing the new component out of the existing weapon bits, and by the time I figured it out I still had to make another 10-20 of them. If I could have made my prototype, took measurements with my calipers, then modeled and printed it, I would have had a much more consistent and pleasing army. At the very least I could have made fixtures to hold my remix of the GW kit together.

My intentions is to scratchbuild and fill in the gaps that GW has created. I feel its highway robbery that in order to model a Cadian with a plasma gun I either have to buy the command spru or buy a bunch of individual piece from a dubious online source or spend upwards of 10 bucks to buy them from Forge World. If they would bring back the bits store, I would probably not go in the direction 3D printing my own supplements.

I do see a future in which GW would sell DRM'd .STL or .IGES files that wouldn't be able to be modified. I also see them only supporting something like Stereolithography due to the quality that their own standards dictate.

Sorry for the ramble, I haven't had my coffee yet.

[TheKennanator]

It is piracy pure and simple. Unless a permit or licensing ploy is used, a 3D printed version of a GW model is theft. No way around it.

Oh crap, then I committed theft when I modeled and printed a replacement turret ring for my Baneblade GW shipped me that was missing the piece from the kit. Huh... imagine that.

[Kernbanks]

I think more Miniatures companies will adapt to the new environment just like everyone has to do to survive...

I'd like to see where GW gets their money from, or any rules/IP keeping company. If they switch to maintaining themselves with revenue generated from the IP in the form of novels and rule books to play the game I believe players would support them and continue to keep the company going. Then they could sell digial plans for people with 3d printers, or to a lesser extent produce miniatures themselves. (Some people will hold off getting on board the new tech or just will want to go and simply buy a model to assemble).

But if GW (or any company) attempts to maintain a kingdom, the technology will surpass them and erode at the foundation.

I personally like the idea of a living game that the 7th edition rules rumors are leaning towards. Play out of White Dwarf, keep it open, have codex entries with no models so people can create, encourage creation so people keep buying the books, magazines, dataslates... that keeps you open and the players happy.

[Arkhan Land]

dont sell it, dont take it anywhere that sells it. should be cool!

[Nabterayl]

Oh crap, then I committed theft when I modeled and printed a replacement turret ring for my Baneblade GW shipped me that was missing the piece from the kit. Huh... imagine that.
If the turret ring is a copyrightable component, then yes you did. It probably isn't, so [probably] no theft in that case. On the other hand, if you had done the exact same thing with a more visually distinctive piece (say, a missing lascannon barrel, just to pull an example out of thin air), odds that you have committed theft go way up.

[archimbald]

As usual when this topic comes up, i feel people over react, the cost of a 3d printer needed for something of 28mm scale at the quality we are used to is damn expensive, heck, people are only now getting personal laser cutters, at a £700+, with the maker bot 2 still over £2k, and at far less than optimal detail (we have them in use at work), its going to be a long time, certainly not 3years, before every day joe blogs can have one beside their HP Printer, as for the sculttping software, takes a while to learn proficiently, so congrats to builder, although their are easier ones and tuitorials/comissions may be the way they go, along with licensed files for download.


Call me a pessimist or whatever, but people need to chill out

[Theik]

As it currently stands, a 3d printer will cost you somewhere around the 2000 euro mark and it most likely won't produce the kind of details you see on an average game's workshop miniature. (Well, unless it's a finecrap miniature, but that's an entirely different situation.) Add to that the price of the material to print and the time it takes to print and it is far more convenient to simply buy the miniature and put up with the high prices. You could in theory pirate a codex, print it all, make your own hardcover and create your own exact copy of the real thing, but I have yet to see anybody do it. Why? Because you'll end up with a half-assed attempt that doesn't look anything like the original. (Unless you happen to make books for a living, then go you.)

Until the technology gets better to allow for more detail and cheaper printing, it simply isn't worth the hassle of printing your own models if you end up with the same amount of detail as the average lego figure.

[tyrela]

If it is for personal use It would not be considered theft. Is it theft to copy a CD to Itunes to play on your MP3 player? No. as long as youa re not distributing the item it is fully protected under personal use.

[BrotherAlpharius]

Ehhhh, I dunno. Keep in mind mass production techniques are also advancing. Home 2d-printers never destroyed the book industry for much the same reason.


This. Mass production by the bulk manufacturer should always be more efficient than home production. The manufacturer can negotiate better prices with its suppliers, afford better and more efficient machinery, etc. Yes, in the case of GW they have staff costs which the individual hobbyist does not and they are trying to support a network of physical stores which may become an outmoded business concept in need of change but fundamentally the home hobbyist shouldn't undermine the manufacturer. In theory I could get an electronic copy of a novel and print it out on my home printer but why bother? It's quicker, cheaper and less effort to go on Amazon and order the book for £5. The same should be true of 3d printing.

I am guessing here as I don't know the costs. Builder, would you mind telling us the approximate cost of your 3d printer and estimates of the cost of resin used for models of varying sizes?

[techsoldaten]

I don't see this primarily as a moral / legal issue, so much as how it's done these days.

Most of the sculptors I know make their models at 2x scale then scan it into a computer to add fine details before printing their casts on a 3d printer. I know several people who personally own industrial 3d printers with very high resolution and use it to print copies of their models as proofs for their clients. Saying the tech is 3 years off is a misnomer, it's there right now for the people who want to invest in it. The cost to entry is not that much worse than getting a new Mac Pro, and it's coming down.

While I understand IP and the need for creators to protect their work, 3d printing introduces a lot of new variables into the equation. I think of the future as a sharing economy, where the companies who win are going to be the ones who can effectively implement business models that incorporate people's personal tech into what they do. If you look at what has happened with music, games, etc, you find that the companies that do the best are the ones that facilitate simpler, more efficient and higher quality transactions than can be had through alternative models.

GW is experimenting with microtransactions on the rules side, and I don't think it will be long before they take a good, hard look at personal 3d printing in a similar way. I don't think they will embrace it fully, but I could see scenarios where people can order scratch-built custom models and have them delivered to stores. Eventually, they may get to the point where you can design a model through some proprietary software using their files as a base and print it locally. This would be in-line with army painters seen in various GW video games, and army builder software you can purchase today - it seems like personalization is very much a nice to have with any digital product.

No clue what they will do in the end, but there's no right or wrong involved. These are decisions about business models that need to be made by a company, anyone making copies of stuff right now is just ahead of the curve. There is no one talking about setting up their own printing business that churns out copies of GW products, which are fully protected under international IP laws. Someone doing something at home and not distributing it, or small outfits trying to get away with rip-offs, don't do much harm to the GW business model at it stands. The last annual report dealt with some of this and they are not saying it's a big deal to investors.

Anyways, it will be interesting to see which way this goes, but it's a mistake to give too much weight to the actions of a few people with 3d printers. The technology is whiz-bang but it's not a substitute with a business model designed to capitalize on a market. Quite frankly, if GW fails to capitalize in this area, someone else will find a way to do it better and succeed them - the cost of entry is too low and there will be a lot of players.

[Joe TwoCrows]

Glancing through the responses makes for interesting reading. But then BOLS is good at that.

One idea not presented (or I missed) is a parallel with the intellectual property issues associated with filk songs. For those who may not be familiar with the term, I recommend the wikipedia article as a starting point.

Using filks as an analogy, 3d can be a direct 'cover' of an existing song, say the model presented at the start of the thread or a tribute band, a new expression (new melody/new render) of an existing unit/model (this would be the traditional scratchbuild),a parody (wierd Al, I'm not sure this applys here); or a completely new set of lyrics/new model not otherwise represented in the GW product set (the CH example). All of these, exist in the IP universe created by GW.

GW wants only their models, or those by their licensees (if any?) to be sold for use in their game rules. OK, that's their business. But, then we get back to the original question: Scratchbuilds, or Not? Using the filk analogy, and please remember analogies are never exact, the answer is Both, depending on the creator.

My profit factor, anyway.

[tankbusta]

Don't forget about the "fair use" precedents that have been made for MP3's etc, most of which draws on the arguments made during the cassette/VCR periods of technology. You can make a copy of an MP3 or a DVD because of "fair use". You cannot legally sell bootleg copies in the US at least, nor can you post legally a digital copy online for any and all to take.

I don't believe a similar "fair use" law exists when it comes to miniatures.

While very few consumers have the solidarity or the patience to hold off from buying something in order to drive the price down, the law of supply and demand does still work. Why does GW charge the price it does, above whatever their "break even" cost is? Because they can.

[Stubber]

I'm of the opinion that with the inevitable improvement and reducing costs of 3D printers/scanners, we will see one in almost every home in the developed world by 2025; much like the proliferation of PCs, then laptops and now smartphones.
With the obvious appeal of online shopping and success stories such as amazon and ebay for physical products and steam and itunes for digital products I think that small scale home 3D printing will become the next source for manufactured small devices from tin openers to little plastic miniatures. The obvious source for the files for these products coming from an online database where you pay for the rights to own the file and print it as often as you wish.

I think that this is the next natural step in the evolution of wargaming miniatures.
The host company (GW) could keep their own costs low by only employing model sculptors and the IT department to keep the system running and most of the cost of actually creating the physical miniature is taken on by the end user in terms of materials, energy and printing time. This would also allow bitz and out of production items to be sold as easily as a full production range as the only hardware needed is more hard drive space and internet bandwidth (I'd love to play some MoW).
Some people will argue that mass production of minis is cheaper than home printing and I agree that it is, but we're not talking about making green army men with the facial expressions of a chewed on pencil here. Minute detail and fits in with mass production about as well as a rabid honey badger fits in with a box of kittens.
6588


The consumer benefits too. Reduced costs to own the model. Security; if their collection is lost, stolen or destroyed somehow they can simply print it again after the tears and molten plastic have dried. And conversions can become relatively easy as the end customer can modify a digital sculpture to millimetre measurements without needing to develop skills using knives, dremmels or the snot coloured delight that is green stuff.


Saying all that I know that it's not going to be easy to convince a miniature industry that spent the last 30+ years developing their model production abilities to kick the bucket on mass production and commit to home manufacturing but I believe that, since the march of technology will not be stopped by the fat cats of the wargaming industry, they will be forced to adopt something similar to steam for 3D printing files or else their price tag and internet piracy will shove them to the back of the market.

Until that day when a company like GW embraces home 3D printing I think doing it at home will be straddling a legal and moral grey area whilst waving a hat in the air and yelling yaahoooo!!!
6587

[Nabterayl]

Don't forget about the "fair use" precedents that have been made for MP3's etc, most of which draws on the arguments made during the cassette/VCR periods of technology. You can make a copy of an MP3 or a DVD because of "fair use". You cannot legally sell bootleg copies in the US at least, nor can you post legally a digital copy online for any and all to take.

I don't believe a similar "fair use" law exists when it comes to miniatures.

While very few consumers have the solidarity or the patience to hold off from buying something in order to drive the price down, the law of supply and demand does still work. Why does GW charge the price it does, above whatever their "break even" cost is? Because they can.

If it is for personal use It would not be considered theft. Is it theft to copy a CD to Itunes to play on your MP3 player? No. as long as youa re not distributing the item it is fully protected under personal use.
What fair use precedents that have been made for MP3s? Copying music, even for your own personal non-profit use, is absolutely copyright infringement (stealing, if you want to get non-technical about it). You paid for one copy of the music, and you have two (or more). It's simply stealing of a sort that people are unlikely to go after you for, because it's almost never worth the trouble.

Even if everybody agreed that ripping was covered by the fair use exception (which they don't (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#United_States)), though, I don't think that's a good analogy for 3D printing somebody else's miniature design. Ripping is about the format of the music - you start with something you can only play in a CD player, and end up with something you can play in a CD player and something that you can play in an MP3 player. Most people don't even think of it as duplicating. But if you were to, say, 3D print a space marine, you would simply have two space marines, and everybody thinks of that as duplicating. It is less like ripping and more like making a copy of a CD (paid for one thing and now you have two), or like pirating an album via bittorrent (paid for zero things and now you have one).

[Build]

My personal opinion is it's a combination of both sculpture and something different.

This is for the very simple reason that it requires the same approach, the same thought process, but different tools and mediums (one being something you physically touch and mold in all three dimensions from start to finish, where as the other you do not). By the same vein other aspects apply too, for example it's very easy to un-do a move with no damage and at the click of a button if you make a mistake in Z-brush or mudbox, where as a slip of the thumb can ruin hours of work on an putty based sculpt.