Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Alpharius wrote:Possibly because, while the Lammasu IS a previously existing concept, the Raging Heroes version bore more than a passing resemblance to the older GW version?

There's only so much you can do with:

Wikipedia wrote:often depicted with a bull or lion's body, eagle's wings, and human's head.

Although granted the Lammasu head is a bit of a dead ringer. (especially the braided beard).

Think the Assyrians got there with the braided beards some condiderable time before GW.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Think the Assyrians got there with the braided beards some condiderable time before GW.

Show me an Assyrian Lamassu with a braided beard, horns, and a nose ring and we'll talk.

The Lamassu head by Raging Heroes may have been a better sculpted and designed version than GW's, but it built off of GW's original copyrighted concept of what a Lamassu should look like.

biccat wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Think the Assyrians got there with the braided beards some condiderable time before GW.

Show me an Assyrian Lamassu with a braided beard, horns, and a nose ring and we'll talk.

The Lamassu head by Raging Heroes may have been a better sculpted and designed version than GW's, but it built off of GW's original copyrighted concept of what a Lamassu should look like.

When compared to the ancient Mesopotamian statuary representing the lammassu, the only changes GW made were to stylize the horns and make a nose-ringed less humanlike face. Check out the thousands of pictures you can find on Google Images.

Though, that being said, the RH lammassu is pretty darn similar to the GW one.

biccat wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Think the Assyrians got there with the braided beards some condiderable time before GW.

Show me an Assyrian Lamassu with a braided beard, horns, and a nose ring and we'll talk.

It's not a common depiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamassu

Bull's body, human head, wings, braided beard, horns. Ok it hasn't got the nose ring but the idea of bulls and nose rings going together isn't original...

Assyrians were big on braided beards, it's all over their stuff, I think that inspired GW not the other way around.

Saldiven wrote:

biccat wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Think the Assyrians got there with the braided beards some condiderable time before GW.

Show me an Assyrian Lamassu with a braided beard, horns, and a nose ring and we'll talk.

The Lamassu head by Raging Heroes may have been a better sculpted and designed version than GW's, but it built off of GW's original copyrighted concept of what a Lamassu should look like.

When compared to the ancient Mesopotamian statuary representing the lammassu, the only changes GW made were to stylize the horns and make a nose-ringed less humanlike face. Check out the thousands of pictures you can find on Google Images.

Though, that being said, the RH lammassu is pretty darn similar to the GW one.

While GW's art is based on the traditional image, they modified it and added new elements. For example:

GW's has a braided beard that is wider at the bottom than at the top, consisting of multiple braids. The traditional Lamassu has a narrow tapering beard.

They also added a nose-ring and stylized the horns in a way substantially different than that shown in the traditional statues.

These elements constituted a copyright, which Raging Heroes used as a starting point for their Lamassu. The problem is, GW's art was based on public domain art (O.K.), Raging Heroes' was based on copyrighted art (not O.K.)

Biccat

Show me where I mentioned horns and a nose ring !

But since you mention these features...

Bullocks invented horns wayyyyy back in evolution, even before men started playing with little dollies.
The Assyrian sculptures have stylised horns on their head gear
Farmers started putting rings in bulls' noses possibly as early as the bronze age.

It is hardly beyond the wit of a designer to add these features to a manbull hybrid without reference to the earlier GW one.

Well, the Lamassu is clearly a mythological beast from Assur and related cultures with braided beard, bighat, bull body, hooves, even horns.
Hunting this down is a far stretch and not fair for a company with a long history of "borrowing" other ideas



Concerning ethics: Australia currently pays about double world prices, with a further increase of 20-30% around the corner. That's why many Australians bought from Maelstrom and would not accept a 100% price increase relative to Maelstrom prices. Canadas prices also don't reflect the parity to of CDN$ and US$.
Someone said that GW signed a pledge for ethical management or something. Maybe someone can find out, because this might be of interest.

Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact:

Games Workshop just asked "Raging Heroes" to stop selling a Lammassu which is a mythical beast from Assur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamassu) also used in D&D. GW once had such a monster for their Chaos Dwarf bighat range which is OOP for a long time, but they seem to intend making a new one for Warhammer Forge. Seems like GW's IP lawyers keep on harassing the industry with unfounded claims.

http://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/complete-collection/products/manticore

That's pretty sad that they folded like a deckchair.

GW aren't called the Evil Empire without reason in other parts of the hobby, it's just absurd. Hopefully the Chapterhouse case will undermine them a bit, but I fear it still won't stop them using their financial might to get their own way through threats.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Biccat

Show me where I mentioned horns and a nose ring !

But since you mention these features...

Bullocks invented horns wayyyyy back in evolution, even before men started playing with little dollies.
The Assyrian sculptures have stylised horns on their head gear
Farmers started putting rings in bulls' noses possibly as early as the bronze age.

It is hardly beyond the wit of a designer to add these features to a manbull hybrid without reference to the earlier GW one.

I don't dispute that all of those features were present somewhere. And I'm sure you would agree that most literature doesn't invent new words, and even if they did, their copyright wouldn't be limited to those new words.

Copyright can be held in the arrangement and appearance of well-known features if done in a novel way.

I've been thinking over the last day or so, and I think the thing that has hit me hardest is knowing that Kirby owns so many shares and when the company pushes to pay dividends, even borrowing to do so, he's simply trousering a large amount of money.

That is a massive concern, and should be for every shareholder because it's a gravy train for a few people who have little interest in the long term survival of the company other than funnelling profits into their pockets rather than into bolstering the company.

I have very little love for GW, at this point I wouldn't care much if they went bust. Sure I like the universes that they have made, and the models are, objectively speaking, usually very good. Their customer service is good, like you'd expect from a professional company. But I don't play the current game, and all the games I do have they have chosen to no longer support. I largely prefer the older figures so get them at shows and off eBay. I've had all I need from GW. I have loads of books and games, I've got plenty of figures and I do a lot of other things in the hobby. Their prices are outrageous, I have little enthusiasm for even trying this new 'resin' stuff, they've done nothing to engender any loyalty for a long long time due to the total lack of reward in being a customer of theirs. It's been a long time since GW last had a sale, or ran an offer which encouraged some sort of spending. Their hostile approach to other manufacturers and the horror stories from ex-staff make me feel almost dirty to purchase their products.

There's a lot of people still getting joy from GW, and I'll feel bad for them if GW go under because it's a big investment not just in money but in love from people for a hobby, and I would feel bad for all those who lose their jobs. It'll be 'the end of an era' as they say, but the rot set in a long long time ago, and I for one won't shed much of a tear for them.

I think this Lammassu issue is getting off topic insofar as it is being discussed in relation to GW's interactions with Raging Heroes.

In as much as it is a question of what is protectable under copyright, I think the issue is relevant to the Chapterhouse Studios case.

I agree with Biccat that a copyright protects against copying, and Games Workshop's artistic expression of a Lammassu concept would be protectable to some extent. Biccat is correct that the question is whether the accused work is copied from the allegedly copyrighted work. Copyright laws are designed to prevent copying.

However, it is very important to note that a single artistic expression of a Lammassu does not grant ownership of the Lammassu concept. Copyrights never cover concepts, ideas, methods, systems, etc. This necessarily confines the boundaries of any expression of a Lammassu because one could argue that many aspect of a Lammassu expression are inseparable from or inherent in the concept and therefore not protectable.

These elements must necessarily be disregarded when making a determination of whether the accused work is a copy of the allegedly copyrighted work. Case law has provided guidelines about how one defines and determines copying, which have been discussed at length in this and other threads. To refresh our memories, the typical guideline is "substantial similarity" as determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which was first described by Judge Hand in the Peter Pan Fabrics case.

The oft-cited Atari case indicates that unprotectable elements of a copyrighted work must be discounted when making a determination of substantial similarity. So, for example, One should not be able to say that one expression of a Lammassu is copied from another expression of a Lammassu simply because both contain elements that are inherent in the concept of a Lammassu.

What is protectable in a copyright is the author's unique artistic expression, so in a sculpture this could be the posing or overall composition of the work, the artistic details of the braided beard, the muscle structure of the body, etc. We should remember that this is all derived from the notion that a copyright is intended to prevent copying. So, even though the Lammassu concept is widespread, one would easily be able to demonstrate copying if the accused work was literally a copy of the allegedly infringed work. Now, in order to prevent would-be copiers from getting around the law by making insubstantial tweaks to the design, the law has necessarily grown to define copying a little more broadly, i.e. "substantial similarity."

However, one can freely copy that which is in the public domain, either inherently, or because a protectable work has been deliberately placed into the public domain. So, for example, if Games Workshop copied a public domain expression of a Lammassu (I'm not saying it did), it would be perfectly appropriate to copy that copy, which would essentially be nothing more than the same public domain expression.

biccat wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Biccat

Show me where I mentioned horns and a nose ring !

But since you mention these features...

Bullocks invented horns wayyyyy back in evolution, even before men started playing with little dollies.
The Assyrian sculptures have stylised horns on their head gear
Farmers started putting rings in bulls' noses possibly as early as the bronze age.

It is hardly beyond the wit of a designer to add these features to a manbull hybrid without reference to the earlier GW one.

I don't dispute that all of those features were present somewhere. And I'm sure you would agree that most literature doesn't invent new words, and even if they did, their copyright wouldn't be limited to those new words.

Copyright can be held in the arrangement and appearance of well-known features if done in a novel way.

The underlined is the most important point: what we have hear is, sadly, yet another example of GW intimidating a company with the threat of litigation.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong, I haven't seen a picture of GW's old sculpt, perhaps Raging Heroes has baldly copied from it. But the notion that GW can credibly claim copyright over all versions of an ancient concept that also use a nose-ring and a certain style of beard is... an peculiarly broad reading of the relevant law.

While GW's art is based on the traditional image, they modified it and added new elements. For example:

GW's has a braided beard that is wider at the bottom than at the top, consisting of multiple braids. The traditional Lamassu has a narrow tapering beard.

They also added a nose-ring and stylized the horns in a way substantially different than that shown in the traditional statues.

These elements constituted a copyright, which Raging Heroes used as a starting point for their Lamassu. The problem is, GW's art was based on public domain art (O.K.), Raging Heroes' was based on copyrighted art (not O.K.)

The italicized is where you go off the rails: do you have some information that Raging Heroes used the GW sculpt as a reference?

By the by, while I haven't been able to find GW's lamassu, I did find this fellow;

This is not, needless to say, a GW image, but rather the Hunted Lamassu from the MtG expansion Ravnica. The Ravnica lamassu, released in 2005, seems in many respects very close to the RH sculpt, save for the nose ring. Certainly it was available for RH to be inspired by.

Again, without seeing the GW sculpt, it's hard to do more then dispute that the elements recited are sufficiently novel; or, to put it another way, it's very clear that GW cannot claim all non-traditional versions of a lamassu.

Buzzsaw wrote:The italicized is where you go off the rails: do you have some information that Raging Heroes used the GW sculpt as a reference?

To prove liability you have to show:
1) access to the copyrighted work; and
2) substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the infringing work.

However, if the similarity is "striking," then access can be assumed. I think the similarity between the two is obvious.

Here's GW's Lammasu:


Here's Raging Heroes:


I also see that I missed the lower fangs and banding on the horns.

In my (non-legal) opinion, the two are substantially similar, and may even be described as "strikingly similar."

There are some similarities but also enough differences, including the quality of workmanship, to make me go, "eh?"

GW Sculpt:


vs Ragin Heroes Sculpt:


Does not very similar to me, but I am no lawyer.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:There are some similarities but also enough differences, including the quality of workmanship, to make me go, "eh?"

Just because two things are similar doesn't mean that one of them is original enough to constitute a new, copyrightable work of art.

That's why copyright can be difficult to sort out and why court cases arise over it.

If Raging Heroes had told GW to feth off, and a suit had been brought, they might have won. But being a small hobby company they didn't want to take the risk. That is how GW usually manage to enforce their claimed IPs.

Maybe it is time for all the US companies that have received C&D letters from GW to file a class action lawsuit against them.

Mohoc wrote:Maybe it is time for all the US companies that have received C&D letters from GW to file a class action lawsuit against them.

+1. While I support GW's 40k franchise, their IP bullying seems to be getting more and more out of hand.

Mohoc wrote:Maybe it is time for all the US companies that have received C&D letters from GW to file a class action lawsuit against them.

That's an interesting idea, but you'd have to have potential damages in the millions to entice a law firm to take the case. I've actually investigated this possibility, and if enough plaintiffs can be found to push potential damages into the range of 2-3 million, such a lawsuit would be a very real possibility.

I think this is a topic for another thread though. I'm also not sure if these companies would be able to get together on something like this.

How do you prove damages from items you didn't sell in court? Based on previous sales?

weeble1000 wrote:

Mohoc wrote:Maybe it is time for all the US companies that have received C&D letters from GW to file a class action lawsuit against them.

I'm also not sure if these companies would be able to get together on something like this.

That does sound like it could easily become a royal pain to try and organise/keep going efficiently.
It is still a good idea though

Could a company like CHS countersue GW and ask for class action status?

biccat wrote:In my (non-legal) opinion, the two are substantially similar, and may even be described as "strikingly similar."

I'm going to quote from my earlier post for reference:

What is protectable in a copyright is the author's unique artistic expression, so in a sculpture this could be the posing or overall composition of the work, the artistic details of the braided beard, the muscle structure of the body, etc. We should remember that this is all derived from the notion that a copyright is intended to prevent copying. So, even though the Lammassu concept is widespread, one would easily be able to demonstrate copying if the accused work was literally a copy of the allegedly infringed work. Now, in order to prevent would-be copiers from getting around the law by making insubstantial tweaks to the design, the law has necessarily grown to define copying a little more broadly, i.e. "substantial similarity."

As I've said, copyright protects against copying and substantial similarity is intended to only capture insignificant or trivial differences. It is not supposed to capture distinct artistic expressions inspired by or even based on existing copyrighted works. There is indeed a striking similarity between the faces of the two models, but much of what makes these faces strikingly similar is not protectable insofar as it is inherent in the concept of a Lammassu. Furthermore, only comparing the faces igores the entirety of the two works. Copyright law is fuzzy on how and in what circumstances a work can be parsed apart, but the legal question essentially boils down to whether the accused work copies, mind you, copies that which is protectable in the alleged copyright. If the accused work adds something significant to the expression, it should properly be considered a unique artistic expression and not a copy of the alleged copyright.

Granted, all of this is subjective, which makes copyright laws very unpredictable, but if the two works evoke a distinct feeling or meaning, then the accused work should not be considered a copy. This concept is difficult to wrap your head around, but when you look at two works in the context of determining substantial similarity, you must put out of your mind all of that which is not protectable.

This issue of Lammassu sculptures is very similar to two expressions of a natural subject, such as a bird, or a landscape. When you compare one painting of a Robin to another painting of a Robin, you cannot say that the two are similar because they both depict a Robin, even if they depict the same living bird. The subject matter is not protectable. The concept of painting a robin is not protectable, and so on. Therefore, according to Atari, a fact finder is obligated to discount these similarities when determining substantial similarity. How many paintings, photographs, drawings, or written descriptions of the White House, Mount Everest, or Osama bin Laden are strikingly similar? Many of them will necessarily be so. Another example of this concept it Scenes a Faire. One cannot, for example, accuse two femme fatal characters in film noirs to be similar because they are both mysterious seductive women whose charms ensnare the main character and lead him into dangerous and deadly situations.

Does the overall work have a distinct look and feel? That itself should be enough to avoid a finding of substantial similarity. If the accused work has a similar look and feel, that itself does not equate to substantial similarity. It is for this reason that the layperson is specifically not an ordinary observer, in spite of how it may sound. An ordinary observer must, of necessity, be conscious of, understand, and take into account legal findings on what elements of a work are protectable and what is not protectable.

biccat's two step process is technically correct, but it wholly ignores the many nuances involved in establishing those steps and also ignores the vital initial step of determining if a copyright exists, which implicitly involves establishing the boundaries of that copyright.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mohoc wrote:How do you prove damages from items you didn't sell in court? Based on previous sales?

Damage to your business. So it would be important to go through what the potential plaintiff's take in in terms of revenue. This is what eviscerates a class action case like the one you're talking about. Games Workshop goes after small, relatively defenseless companies. These companies typically don't have the kind of revenue which makes for attractive damages, even if the damages were trebled by the judge.

I really think you should start a new thread about this.

I see what the issue with Lamassu is now.
We have all hitherto missed the salient point. Raging Heroes haves used SKULLZ TM on the braidy beard.

Skullz deffo = GW

Thanks for posting the pics of the GW version.
The tusks are more of an issue imh(and non legal)o, and I can see your point more now Biccat.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I see what the issue with Lamassu is now.
We have all hitherto missed the salient point. Raging Heroes haves used SKULLZ TM on the braidy beard.

Skullz deffo = GW

Thanks for posting the pics of the GW version.
The tusks are more of an issue imh(and non legal)o, and I can see your point more now Biccat.

it does make it a lot more obvious with the pictures for comparison. Still irks me though.

Personally, I see enough differences between the two, even in just the head, neck, and shoulder region to feel that Raging Heroes should have wiped their nether regions with GWs C&D order, filmed it, and sent the video to GW.

Best of luck to ChapterHouse and Paulson... and any others that GW decides to bully.

I believe there are two tests to show infringement, extrinsic where violating aspects are highlighted and intrinsic where the jury is asked to decide whether an ordinary person could confuse the two works as being substantially the same.

Legal types feel free to correct me.

1.) Obviously both heads are inspired by the mythical beast from Assur. All general features derive from that.
2.) The two head share even more similarities. But the Raging Heroes head is also considerably different, is not a copy, having a lot of obvious originality, not to speak of higher sculpting quality.
3.) The earlier AD&D Lammasu is a good creature (the MtG Lammasu is later than GW's). What is the standard procedure to make a Chaos version? Add demon horns and tusks.