The article tries to imply that 3D designs cannot be copyrighted, but this is incorrect. If the design is functional, it cannot be copyrighted, but if it is a w

The article tries to imply that 3D designs cannot be copyrighted, but this is incorrect. If the design is functional, it cannot be copyrighted, but if it is a work of art, it is still protected by copyright. So if you carve a statue, and I make and distribute copies of that statue without your permission, I am violating your copyright. If I alter your design, but copy substantial portions in a way that does not constitute fair use, I am also violating your copyright by producing a derivative work. In contrast, design patents only apply to functional items. The classic example is the Coca-Cola bottle. Coke's patent on that is not on the invention of a bottle, or on a useless bauble, but on the ornamental design of a functional item. If the bottle were not intended to hold liquid, but were just a pretty object, it would be eligible for copyright, but not a design patent. I think it would be hard to argue that Warhammer miniatures are functional items. Rather, they are non-functional works of art, and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of copyright. So if you make your own figures based sufficiently on those made by GW, you are creating a derivative work, and violating their copyright.