Is 3D printing scratch building or something else?

[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.



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!!!

[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 ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#United_States]which they don't[/url]), 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.