Games Workshop’s latest Warhammer 40k 3D print notice targets more than proxy minis, naming 39 MyMiniFactory URLs for terrain, basing tools, and more.
A texture roller and a proxy Space Marine aren’t the same problem, but the notice Games Workshop sent MyMiniFactory in September puts them in the same pile. GW wants the marketplace to remove or disable nearly three dozen URLs “as expedient[ly] as possible,” and once you look through what they actually are,”proxy miniatures” are the smallest group. Sixteen are terrain or terrain accessories, while only five are miniatures or proxies.
That mix is what makes this one different from the usual takedown story. The timing is interesting: this comes just a couple of months after GW started handing out its own 40k terrain layouts for free, and GW went after people who print their own models, while GW itself continues to 3D prints its own models.
- The notice: GW asked MyMiniFactory to remove or disable 39 URLs on September 4, 2026, leaning on two claimed UK trademark registrations and nothing else.
- The product mix: 16 terrain and terrain accessories, eight bases and basing tools, seven dashboards and tokens, five miniatures or proxies, three free game packs.
- The bigger issue: if GW’s reading holds, the risk sits in the wording on the listing rather than the design underneath it, which puts every “for Warhammer 40k” STL page in the same boat.
Sixteen Terrain Listings and a Texture Roller Aren’t a Bootleg Sweep GW
Sort though the 39 takedowns requests and you get 16 terrain and terrain accessories, eight bases and basing tools, seven dashboards and tokens, five miniatures or proxies, and three free GridRunner packs. Most hobbyists who see a 3D printing takedown headline probably picture proxy minis, but that’s just five of the 39 URLs here.
Two examples: a snake-skin texture roller is a tool you push into putt, and an 11th Edition terrain footprint is basically a piece of paper with a shape on it. Neither one replaces a kit, and neither competes with a boxed terrain set the way a printed Space Marine competes with a Space Marine you can buy from GW.
That’s a pretty big difference in the hobby, because people have spent years separating printed GW-style minis from the terrain, bases, and tools they use around them. The alternative miniatures and STL file scene has spent years drawing a line between printing a model GW sells and printing the ruins you stand it on.
GW also just built its own free terrain layouts into the game, so this notice makes those “products” look a lot less important to GW than they are to the people actually using them.
The Notice Never Names a Single Copied Sculpt
The bigger issue is that this whole notice is a trademark claim. It cites two claimed UK registrations, one covering Warhammer and one covering the 40k mark, and that’s where the claim adbruptly stops being fact and may start being “harsassment.” It doesn’t identify a copied sculpture, copyrighted artwork, registered design, or counterfeit kit.
And once you look at the URLs, you can see exactly where that claim is coming from. Of the 39, 25 contain “Warhammer,” 24 contain “40k,” and 10 carry both. Every URL GW handed over uses one of the two words named in the notice.
Sounds like a AI scan right?
There’s also nothing behind the letter in the way people usually picture when they hear “legal action.” Nobody has filed a lawsuit or attached a damages demand, and the only sign that MyMiniFactory accepted the claims is that most of the product URLs named in the notice now return a 404 web error.
That’s a very different setup from the Ghamak case, where the allegations at least have to survive a judge, or the massive 40k STL leak, where actual files were the issue. GW has also walked claims back before when sellers pushed back.
One thing does give us pause: the contact on the notice is listed as “Mal Reynolds,” which also happens to be the name of a fairly famous fictional space captain. That doesn’t mean the notice is fake, especially since the email uses the gwplc.com domain and the Willow Road, Lenton address matches GW’s corporate contact page. But the PDF doesn’t include the full email headers we could use to verify where it came from, so for now we’re treating it as unconfirmed until GW or MyMiniFactory says otherwise.
Referential Use Is the Argument Nobody’s Making Out Loud
Plenty of the targeted pages say “compatible with,” “suitable for,” or “for Warhammer 40k.” That wording presents the thing as an accessory for GW’s game rather than a GW product, which is exactly the distinction Section 11(2)(c) of the UK Trade Marks Act is built around. Referential use can be permissible when it’s needed to identify what a product is for, particularly accessories, as long as the use follows honest commercial practices.
That doesn’t give creators a free pass, either. It’s a defense that has to be argued, and GW has an obvious counter: some of these titles are stuffed with “Warhammer,” “40k,” edition numbers, faction names, and whatever else the seller thought would rank. At some point, a title can stop explaining compatibility and start leaning on the marks, and GW would probably argue several of these crossed that line.
Both things can be true at once, though, too. Some sellers may have pushed the wording too far, but “any use of the words equals infringement” is still way too simple a read of what’s happening here.
So, if you’ve been shopping for alternative STLs or other 3d prints because the latest new release you wanted was sold out, this is the distinction to look out for.
One Notice Does the Work of Thirty-Nine Lawsuits
One email can put pressure on dozens of creators at once, while GW apparently never has to prove a single allegation to anybody. No filings, no discovery, no judge reading the listing titles. Just a request and a platform deciding whether the fight is worth it.
We’ve watched this scale up before, from the 2021 push against 3D artists through the global seller takedown that froze assets. It isn’t only a GW move, as Bandai ran a version of the same play on Gundam Assemble prints before the game even went live.
MyMiniFactory’s own IP policy adds another wrinkle. It says paid IP-protected content needs authorization, but that “Free Objects are considered fan art and are not subject to the policy,” per the policy itself. Three of the targeted GridRunner packs are free, so the platform’s own rules clearly don’t stop an outside complaint from landing on them.
Final Thoughts on the latest Warhammer 40k 3D Print Notice
Five proxy-mini listings out of 39 makes this a lot broader than the 3D-print takedown most people are probably picturing. The notice reaches terrain, basing tools, dashboards, and the words sellers use to tell hobbyists what all of that stuff works with.
What happens next will probably show up in the listings first. If creators start stripping “Warhammer” and “40k” out of titles while leaving the files themselves up, like the checker-plate bases on Cults, then the practical effect isn’t really the disappearance of the STL.
It’s a change in how sellers are allowed, or willing, to describe it overall.
🔗 Related Reads:
- Ghamak Has New Evidence Against GW’s 3D Printing Warhammer Case
- GW Gives Away Free 40k Terrain Layouts, With One Big Catch
- MyMiniFactory Acquiring Thingiverse Could Change STL Printing Forever
- Yes, GW 3D Prints All Their Warhammer Models & Prosecutes Everyone Else
- Bandai Copies GW, Kills Off 3D Printing Gundam Assemble Miniatures Before It Starts
- Why Warhammer’s Always Sold Out (& the 3D Printing Fix)
- 50 Best Warhammer 40k Alternative Miniatures & STLs (2026)
What do you think about GW targeting terrain and basing tools instead of proxy miniatures?
