Mini Monsters Gargoyle: Rip Off?

[dinohunterpoa]

Mini Monsters Gargoyle:



https://minimonsters.eu/en_US/p/Gargoyles/115


D&D Miniatures Blood War #48 Earth Element Gargoyle :




I've contacted Mini Monsters today (through their website contact form) regarding the fact that its practically the same sculpt, and I'm waiting for an answer - I hope its just a case that the sculptor of the D&D mini is now working for Mini Monsters and somehow have the copyright of the original model. But if it's just a simple case of rip off, makes me wonder if some relatively new company rips off the sculpts of a large company like the holders of the D&D Miniatures franchise, what can we be expected to see in the future regarding small companies and individual sculptors' art properties?  

What can we hobbyists do about such things?

EDIT: What Games Workshop will do about THIS???

[Sterling Moose]

To my eye the gargoyles are sufficiently different to avoid the 'recast' charge.  The face, position of the arms and legs all look different, though similar, to me.

Same can't be said of the other figure though   

[dinohunterpoa]

I've just got an email from them:

This model are similiar because I look on them when I sculpt, but when You look closer You find many difrences. Its not the same model.

Regards,
Slawek.

But no talk about the GW Space Marine and other "similar" products. OMG!

[Andrew May]

If this is the only case of plagiarism that you've come across in the miniatures industry then you must have been living under a rock....in a cave. The thread would be a mile long just documenting every "rip off" ever put out.   

 

[dinohunterpoa]

If this is the only case of plagiarism that you've come across in the miniatures industry then you must have been living under a rock....in a cave. The thread would be a mile long just documenting every "rip off" ever put out.  

 

EXACTLY!  

What can we do about it?

[stone-cold-lead]

EXACTLY!  

What can we do about it?

The D&D thing is just whatever. You might be digging for something that's not really there (yes, it's similar but hardly an IP infringement - I'm sure someone will now rant about that). The space marine statue is using someone else's IP. If it bothers you though then contact the IP holder and let them take whatever action.

[Daeothar]

The Gargoyles? They both look incredibly similar to hosts of real world examples on gothic churches throughout Europe; there are literally thousands of them.

And since the romantic revival of gothic architecture in the late 19th century, they've been added to many new buildings as well, including many skyscrapers in Art Deco style.

Gargoyles could be considered as generic as, say, dwarves, orks or elves. And since a humanoid body has an only limited range of motion, posing will often be similar too.

He may have had the D&D version on his table while sculpting, but the small differences between the sculpts make it different enough to not be considered an IP breach, which would not have been the case, had the D&D sculpt been recast of course.

As for the (not?) Space Marine? If that's not a mission for GW's Adeptus Advocatus, I don't know what is...

[dinohunterpoa]

As for the (not?) Space Marine? If that's not a mission for GW's Adeptus Advocatus, I don't know what is...

 

[WitchfinderGeneral]

What can we hobbyists do about such things?

Don't buy them. Things won't be produced, if nobody buys them.


Talking about that gargoyle: Isn't it a good thing, that you can now buy two very similar (but not exactly the same!) figures? Put the one on the left and the other on the right side of your cemetery gate and it'll look perfectly fine!

[Daeothar]

...Isn't it a good thing, that you can now buy two very similar (but not exactly the same!) figures? Put the one on the left and the other on the right side of your cemetery gate and it'll look perfectly fine!

This may have crossed my mind... 

[Andrew May]

EXACTLY!  

What can we do about it?

[grant]

Hmmmm....

[Peithetairos]

I am actually not sure if the idea behind a sculpture can be the subject of copyright. Both miniatures are original sculpts, but are inspired by existing sculptures. If I sculpt a Maria with child, based on other sculptural depictions, would this infringe on the copyright of the original artist?

Another grey zone would be Not-miniatures. Is it illegal to sculpt a Scully and Mulder? What about the Hero Quest miniatures based on the front cover of the old game that made the round in the Fantasy forum?

These are more questions for discussion, as I don't know the answer. Obviously a C&D by some potent company would have an effect, but only because you can do something, doesn't make it right or implies it is in accordance with the law.

My advise: Don't report such things without absolute certainty that it actually does infringe on copyright. I don't think a small miniature company will be helped by it. Much rather don't buy if you object and rather buy more innovative sculpts.

[stone-cold-lead]

That's a can of worms that usually goes the same way as any 'discussion' about 'what's the value of a miniature' or 'is recasting bad?'. 

[Daeothar]

My advise: Don't report such things without absolute certainty that it actually does infringe on copyright. I don't think a small miniature company will be helped by it. Much rather don't buy if you object and rather buy more innovative sculpts.

Actually, this would make more sense to me than the habituary torches and pitchforks. It seems it's a kneejerk reaction we've come to expect because of a certain company's jealously guarded IP and the associated legal sabre ratling.

However; the above would only work if the entirety of the customer base was infused with perfect morals standards. And we all know that there are plenty of us out there who would, secretly or not, still buy such stuff, even though they know it's not OK. So the proposed abstinence of copied/pirated/recast miniatures could never be upheld outside of a perfect world. Which it sadly isn't...