Resin casting - and copying?

[justin1985]

I have been planning for a while to model a selection of N Gauge electric stock from the East Anglian mainline in the 1990s. I'm designing etched sides and ends to convert a Farish Mk2 air-con to a DBSO, and have similar plans to do a similar conversion, probably with 3D-printed cabs and pantograph wells etc to make a class 312 EMU.

 

The Farish cl.150 DMU is clearly very similar to the other mk.3 bodyshell units, including the cl.321 EMU, so an obvious candidate for conversion. However it is also very expensive to start cutting and shutting, especially considering at least two two-car sets at £70ish would be needed to make a single cl.321. I had the thought that I could possibly make a resin mould of the bodyshell of a Farish 150, produce four castings and then do the cutting and shutting\adding overlays etc.

 

I've never made my own resin castings before though, so a few questions:

 

1) Presuming that I would do this only for personal purposes and never sell any "derivative" models, there shouldn't be any problems (legally) doing this?

 

2) Is the mould-making process destructive at all? Could I just pour the mould-making material over my existing cl.150 body (suitably set up and contained etc.) and then expect to remove the original and use it again without either the bodywork or the paintwork being damaged by the process?

 

Cheers

 

Justin

[millsie]

Im planning on releasing resin kits under Melton Model Works, and my masters are all plasticard, and i then pour the moulding material over them, and they are fine, but it also depends on the type of resin, as some are more destructive than others.

 

martin

[Phil Traxson]

Im planning on releasing resin kits under Melton Model Works, and my masters are all plasticard, and i then pour the resin over them, and they are fine, but it also depends on the type of resin, as some are more destructive than others.

 

martin

 

Wakey-Wakey Millsie, its the mould rubber you pour over the master, not the resin!!

 

Phil T.

[cromptonnut]

Presuming that I would do this only for personal purposes and never sell any "derivative" models, there shouldn't be any problems (legally) doing this?

 

There was a rather long article about this sort of thing from Pete Waterman in ModelRail a few months ago which basically said "don't do it".

 

I would hazard that this debate could turn very heated very quickly.

[JohnR]

I think the difference (legally) is in what the OP is proposing to do with the resin mould afterwards. If its only for his own use, fair enough. If he then starts to sell (or even to give away?) the results of the new mould, then its onto dodgy ground, and he might be legally liable.

[Pixie]

I'm sure others know better than I do, but I seem to recall somewhere that there's a minimum number of alterations needed before you can sell a product as your own. I was a little wary about this when selling my 37/0 ends as the end of the day they were just the Bachmann end but with a few bits moved around or altered (I don't think Bachmann would be too bothered mind as people would still have to buy their product to use them).

 

As for straight copies for your own use I'm not sure how the law lies. I've cast a lot of bits from the Kitmaster Blue Pullman for my project without really thinking about it but with Kitmaster defunct for a good few years probably lulled my mind into a (false?) sense of security. I'd be intruiged to hear what the law actually states.

 

Pix

[Horsetan]

....As for straight copies for your own use I'm not sure how the law lies. I've cast a lot of bits from the Kitmaster Blue Pullman for my project without really thinking about it ....

 

When Chris Leigh did his cast ends for the Blue Pullman, the "inside" still had the vestiges of the Kitmaster emblems in them, I seem to recall. If anyone's got a spare unused one lying about, could they confirm?

[tebee]

But if you are making an accurate model of something, the moulds are going to be identical whether you scratch build your own masters or take a copy off someone else model. So how could someone sue you for copying?

 

Unless of course the original is inaccurate, but then you would not want to make something that was wrong would you?

 

 

Tom

[Pixie]

Very similar to Justin's question 1 - but if I were to cast some of Heljan's 47 tanks for placing under some of my Bachmann/Vitrains hybrids, on the basis they're solely for my own use and not for sale/giving away, would I be breaking any laws? It's something I've been planning on doing for some time as they're no longer available from Howes or Heljan. Similar thing with the Falcon fuel tanks, they should be asymmetrical rather than symmetrical (I think it's that way round!), so I was thinking of casting one side to correct my own.

Pix

[Karhedron]

1) Presuming that I would do this only for personal purposes and never sell any "derivative" models, there shouldn't be any problems (legally) doing this?

Define problem. Technically it is illegal in the same way that copying your own CDs onto your iPod is illegal. However if it is just for your only personal use then the chances of you ever being prosecuted for it are zero.

[justin1985]

OK, the concensus seems to be that the concept is OK so long as there is no commercial interest or dissemination, in practice it should be legitimate. I'm sure there are probably finer points that could be argued regarding copyright of something which is sold rather than licensed etc., but for me, and as a one-off, this is good enough.

 

Does anyone have any more thoughts on the actual process though? On reflection I think I would end up buying a second Bachmann 150 anyway simply to use the mechanism, so the impact of the mould-making on the paintwork wouldn't be so important (would probably buy one in ATW or Centro livery, or whichever gets reduced the most ...).

 

But is something the size of a 150 bodyshell in N feasible for casting at home? Any recommendations of specific materials that are kind on plastic, or best for avoiding bubbles etc?

 

Also, is it feasible to make one mould, make changes to it (e.g. to make it into a 321 driving car), and then recast it from the first copy to create a second driving car etc? Or would it loose too much definition?

 

Cheers

 

Justin

[tebee]

Define problem. Technically it is illegal in the same way that copying your own CDs onto your iPod is illegal. However if it is just for your only personal use then the chances of you ever being prosecuted for it are zero.

 

I actually disagree with that, but rather than risk starting a flame war on this thread , I'll start my own topic.

[millsie]

if you mould from your first master, the mould is then set to that particular one, if you changed the MASTER, then you would need to re-mould it, so then you have incorporated your alterations.

 

Phil, yes, i will change it, as i was in a rush to go out...but in my head, i knew what i ment lol

 

martin

[bertiedog]

Copyright infringement comes into it so far as copying other work, but in this case the parts used become components of a new work, which would be your work.

 

It would require a disclaimer and permission from the original maker to sell the new item, put simply you must not pass work off as entirely your own, but you can incorporate manufactured parts from other makers with permission.

 

Also, but not specifically in the case of Kitmaster, of whom I know no exact details, but do know the holding company traded long after the range folded, (and still exist), the copyrights, patents, and intellectual property do not lapse with closure of the company, they are sold or held by a possible assortment of trusts, lawyers, beneficiaries of estates etc, until they lawfully expire. They are a tradable asset of the company.

On copying a thin section plastic body, a painted body would not make a good master, the silicon is inert when set, but the heat of setting etc, may warp plastic, and attack paints from the chemicals in the catalyst.

 

Buy some cheap spare shells from ebay, and do some practice runs, it is costly, but getting a mould right first time out is difficult. Silicon eases the undercut problems, but you still need a lot of skill to get the inner plug right so that it withdraws, and also getting the seams accurate if through holes like window apertures are involved.

 

For home use plasticine can be used for an inner plug, but for the very best work a plaster one is cast within, the outer mould in made, the inner one dissolve with acid and then the inner plug made.

The plaster inner allows work with scrapers etc., to perfect the mould line within window frames, easier in the long run than plasticine.

 

Hope these notes help, the rule with copyright is simple, what would you say to somebody selling your work as theirs?

 

Stephen.

[Phil Traxson]

On copying a thin section plastic body, a painted body would not make a good master, the silicon is inert when set, but the heat of setting etc, may warp plastic, and attack paints from the chemicals in the catalyst.

 

Stephen.

 

The silicon rubbers I use have never got hot whilst setting, at the moment I'm using "Wacker M4512" and their T21 Catalyst. I suppose there is the possibility of the paint being attacked by the catalyst but most of my patterns are virgin plastic, one or two have had Halfords primer on them but I've not noticed any ill effects, some of them have been in steady use for 15 years now.

 

Phil T.

[tebee]

Copyright infringement comes into it so far as copying other work,.......

 

Well I put my carefully reasoned rebuttal of this under "Modelling Musings" as it seemed the most appropriate place - only to discover you have to wait for admin approval there.

 

The gist of my argument is that under UK law you cannot copyright a object - anyone is free to make copies of anything they see. We would all be in a lot of trouble if the railways could copyright their locos !

[bertiedog]

Well I put my carefully reasoned rebuttal of this under "Modelling Musings" as it seemed the most appropriate - place only to discover you have to wait for admin approval there.

 

The gist of my argument is that under UK law you cannot copyright a object - anyone is free to make copies of anything they see. We would all be in a lot of trouble if the railways could copyright their locos !

 

It is not the object, it is the design, and intellectual rights that are copyright, and YES railways do claim copyright, mainly to livery of course, but in States companies have licensed model companies to issue models of copyright designs.

 

The Pennsylvania GG 1 was an example, Raymond Loewry, the body designer, claimed copyright on the streamlined design, and models had to be licensed, and there was a joke going around that Varney's GG 1 was deliberately short and inaccurate to get around the copyright, whereas in fact he was licensed, it was short to run on tight curves.

 

You can make models of anything, but you cannot pass the model as your own work if you copy some object, or infringe the various rights of the original makers.

Stephen.

[bertiedog]

I notice Phil says his silicon does not get hot, but by hot I meant warmer and thin sections may be affected, ....note the word ...may!...

 

There is nearly always an exothermic reaction with silicon of most kinds, I use Dow Corning, and get about 15/25c increase, nowhere as much as casting resin, but even this rise might warp some moulded thin section master bodies, note thin sections, and moulded, where even mild heat may make the plastic "relax" and warp.

 

The above is a relative warning, I suggested trials to check, it may well work fine, but forewarned is forearmed, you know what to expect might happen.

 

Stephen.

[tebee]

Thing is, it doesn't matter how careful your 'reasoned rebuttal' is, it's got to reflect the current UK copyright legislation. I

 

Yes and under current UK copyright legislation you can copyright maps, charts, engravings, prints, musical compositions, dramatic works, photographs, paintings, drawings sculptures, motion pictures, computer programs, sound recordings, dance and architectural works but not other things.

[bertiedog]

Yes and under current UK copyright legislation you can copyright maps, charts, engravings, prints, musical compositions, dramatic works, photographs, paintings, drawings sculptures, motion pictures, computer programs, sound recordings, dance and architectural works but not other things.

 

It's is the design that's"copyright", ( the actual legislation is UK/EU design and intellectual rights), but also it can be argued that models come under artistic representations for rights purposes, however I know of no case where this is upheld in court.

 

However there are plenty of examples of unauthorised "commercial copying" that are upheld in courts.

 

There are also laws to prevent passing off as your work the work of others. There are stacks of other intellectual rights, supporting the originator,patents, design, trademarks, and contract law.

[tebee]

But design rights are to cover the artistic merit of the object, furthermore they need to be registered and as a model is by definition a copy of a previous design you can't register it!

 

Just because you have made something, that does not stop everybody else from making the same thing, even if you have spent time designing and marketing it. The only way you can protect it is if the design or technology is sufficiently innovative, then you can register a design or patent. If it was not this way than the entire market for non-original car parts would not exist.

 

It may seem strange but the instructions to a kit have more protection under the law than the kit itself!

 

Now if you where to try and sell whatever you had copied as the original part, then it becomes a counterfeit but until then it's legal.

[bertiedog]

I think this is getting too involved and off posting, taking anybody else's work is theft, and design rights do exist even if non registered.

Stephen.

[Horsetan]

I'd speak to this bloke, he's probably quite experienced in such matters if you know what to look for in his CV

 

 

http://www.henderson.../cases.asp?id=3

 

 

QC rates too.....

[Ian J.]

To quote from the link regarding design rights (Here):

 

3. Unregistered design rights.

 

Unregistered design rights protect the shape or configuration of a marketable (or potentially marketable) product, and are used to prevent unauthorised copying of an original design. Design rights can also be bought, sold or licensed in a similar manner to copyright.

 

Design rights exist independently of copyright, while copyright may protect documents detailing the design as well as any artistic or literary work incorporated within the finished product, the design right focuses more on the shape, configuration and construction of a product.

 

In the UK, unregistered design rights have been available since 1989, and have been available since March 2002 throughout the European Community.

 

Unregistered design rights are automatic and are treated in the similar manner as copyright. For this reason they may be registered with the UK Copyright Service in the same manner as copyright work in order to establish proof of the date and content of the work in case of any later dispute or legal claims.

 

Arguably this should also be posted in the other thread created about copying, as it closes off the argument. There is simply no legal case in UK or European law for copying a design without permission.

[justin1985]

I'm afraid that this thread and the one it has spawned appear to have got totally out of hand. Perhaps I should have been more careful in phrasing my original questions.

 

What I've learnt though:

 

1) Casting from a thin section plastic model should be possible, but would require extreme care in choice of materials, and technique.

 

2) Modifying a model and then making a casting from it shouldn't be a problem (pragmatically\morally) as long as I am not depriving the original manufacturer of sales.

 

i.e. if I buy a 2 car DMU, cut and shut sections from both cars to make one final car, and then cast that to replace the one I have butchered, that is potentially less of an issue than if I were to then repeat the process to produce a whole four car set, starting with only two cars. So, I would feel comfortable converting a Bachmann 150 into a cl.456, for example, but if I wanted to produce a cl.321 or cl.319 I should buy two cl.150s. This would of course result in the correct number of chassis units being available too!

 

It goes without saying that "derivative" work should never passed off as one's own, and never sold or disseminated - c.f. previous point about depriving manufacturers of income.

 

Cheers

 

Justin