Redirecting discussion from the N&R thread, which should be about the products themselves.

This thread is about whether CHS should be making them or not and whether GW might have recourse under the law against CHS for making them.

I realize people have strong feelings on this matter but remember to comply with all DakkaDakka rules -- including being polite to other users.

I personally do not care either way as I don't particularly care fo CH's stuff. Other people do and that's cool. I also play/paint strictly at a GW store so even if I liked these items, they would be iffy (not because my store manager would really care, because he probably wouldn't unless he knew he was getting a visit, but because I don't care to tempt getting staff that I really like in trouble.)

Bottom line: Flamebait thread.

unneeded comment removed. If one suspects a topic will be "flamebait" then there's really no need to add to the situation. Much obliged.

Reds8n

Do we really need another Chapter House thread?

Couldn't we sticky one of the other ones?

I think part of what makes Warhammer *work is the fact that it has so many aspect to makes the owners happy.
And certainly the modelling aspect is among one of them that makes people proud. And of course further *justify the amount of $ we dish out for some cheap plastic.

With that said , of course its convenient for CH to produce products that hopefully doesnt produce what GW / FW currently also have.
Less conversion / work for us to do i guess? However i cant but help feel , it takes away a little of the *spirit and fun in our little hobby.

Another example , GW since Tyranids have many units for example Tyranofex / Tervagon that no doubt wishes its customers to utilize
multiple kits to produce / convert / kit bash our own. Again while CH is convenient with producing the equivalent , Not-a-Tyranofex ,
im sure thats less sales for GW. ( bit's usage im sure contributes to what we perceive a worth of a kit to be )

So what bothers me i guess is , how ever little harm we do to GW to gain convenience , is it morally right or not?

Personally i think its wrong , obviously GW also think its wrong hence the little drama back then.
But will we sacrifice little morality for convenience? Im sure many will.

CT GAMER wrote:Do we really need another Chapter House thread?

Couldn't we sticky one of the other ones?

Seriously.

Such bush league sculpts (mostly. and my personal opinion) don't really deserve all the free press. Its pretty telling that dozens of bits/conversion companies can consistently release products of better quality and not elicit such ridiculousness.

Sidestepping the right or wrong, legally or morally, I think it was a great example of what NOT to do while currently involved with a lawsuit already.

mikhaila wrote:Sidestepping the right or wrong, legally or morally, I think it was a great example of what NOT to do while currently involved with a lawsuit already.

I dunno, the sales might help pay for the massive damages they've now guaranteed themselves to be hit with.

mikhaila, at the end of the day he still has bills to pay. What is he supposed to do?

Shut up shop and and file for bankruptcy? This has the same effect as continuing to put out 'not-minatures' and get sued. GW wins in either case.

The issue of whether he is legally entitled to do so rests in court and will be started next week, 11th I think, let the judge & jury decide.

IF CHS is proved to be right, I doubt that anyone who is proGW/antiCHS will change their minds and suddenly support them and vice versa.

I would also be interested to see who comes on to Dakka to apologise/retract for their stance once judgement has been reached?

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:mikhaila, at the end of the day he still has bills to pay. What is he supposed to do?

Sorry, I didn't realize Chapterhouse was a business to keep themselves and their families fed. That changes everything!

I couldn't help but chuckle at this one. Most GW employees work two jobs and freelance on the side to "pay their bills".
What makes Chapterhouse so inherently profitable that they're able to afford supporting themselves through just that?

Shut up shop and and file for bankruptcy? This has the same effect as continuing to put out 'not-miniatures' and get sued. GW wins in either case.

And? I'm sorry that you think GW protecting its property is some kind of monstrous thing, but it's the way the world works.

The issue of whether he is legally entitled to do so rests in court and will be started next week, 11th I think, let the judge & jury decide.

No. "Entitled" isn't the correct word. You're not "entitled" to anything. This is a case of "can they legally get away with it".

IF CHS is proved to be right, I doubt that anyone who is proGW/antiCHS will change their minds and suddenly support them and vice versa.

I would also be interested to see who comes on to Dakka to apologise/retract for their stance once judgement has been reached?

Why would anyone come onto Dakka to apologize or retract for their stance? People aren't taking their stances, for the most part, based upon facts. They're doing it based on emotion.

You'll notice that the majority of pro-Chapterhouse posts are from people who constantly complain about GW. Or people who state that GW has a "monopoly"(which is an adorable sentiment) and that it's "time for that to be broken".
You'll also note that the majority of the "antiCHS" people aren't "proGW". They're "anti" Chapterhouse because of the behavior consistently exhibited by the representatives of the company.

Anyone seen my club - I cannot remember where I left it after that last dead horse I beat during a GW price whine thread.

No-one's opinion on this is going to change from the last 20+ threads on this. Wait for the case to reach judgement and then we will have the answer to most of this instead of indulging in wild speculation with (for most people) no idea about legal theories or ethical systems.

"Ethical systems" don't require a legal case to be concluded to be applied to situations.

They're based upon an individual's values and the perceptions of societies.

You're right though. No matter what, people's opinions aren't going to change about their perceptions of the companies.

The legalities of it though they'll probably debate too.

Kanluwen, you may be reading my post the wrong way.

Mikhaila seemed to be inferring that CHS should have shut up shop until the court case is over, GW wants CHS shut down any way possible, I was trying to point out that closing means that CHS goes bust, and adding additional sculpts isn't going to change anything if they lose the case.

'Entitled', you've never been at the job centre when it's signing on time then.....(Sorry that may be UK humour, if it doesn't translate across the water I apologise)

The point about retraction is the holier than thou stances taken in the other thread that prompted this one. The absolutes.

'Anti' CHS could you please point me in the direction of some of the sources of their bad behaviour, because all I've seen to date is bear baiting.

Cheers

Andrew

Legally, I cannot say.

But my opinion of CHS product is that it is lacking in any creativity. The only product I really like is the Tau a like Titan mainly because as a whole it isn't terribly Tau.

The Seer sculpt really puts me off CHS output. It could have been a space elf caster it could have been tweaked enough to be used in other fictional gaming worlds, the directive from CHS could have been, 'lets give sly nod to GW but lets make something ALL OF OUR OWN be creative'. All that happened was a rip off seer was made and advertised mainly due to the 'obvious' head/helm.

CHS are talented but they will still fail to take my hard earned without coming with something which doesn't smack of 'me too'.

Give me something clever and smart to bang on the table top. I know you can do it.

AndrewC wrote:Kanluwen, you may be reading my post the wrong way.

Mikhaila seemed to be inferring that CHS should have shut up shop until the court case is over, GW wants CHS shut down any way possible, I was trying to point out that closing means that CHS goes bust, and adding additional sculpts isn't going to change anything if they lose the case.

No, he was inferring that CHS shouldn't have released this particular model in the way that it was originally done(with the shop description being of a 'Doomseer' from the Craftworld of Malan'tai, seeking to destroy the Doom of Malan'tai) and this particular model, which is pretty clearly an Eldar Farseer, might have been better to keep on ice until after the case.

'Entitled', you've never been at the job centre when it's signing on time then.....(Sorry that may be UK humour, if it doesn't translate across the water I apologise)

No, I got the humour. But it still doesn't change that you're not legally 'entitled' to be able to use other people's work to do your own without some serious loopholes to go through.

The point about retraction is the holier than thou stances taken in the other thread that prompted this one. The absolutes.

I don't think we're reading the same threads. The legality of things will always be kind of in flux in this area. There's always going to be people questioning it.
Morality and ethics, however, will always lead to "holier than thou" stances.

'Anti' CHS could you please point me in the direction of some of the sources of their bad behaviour, because all I've seen to date is bear baiting.

Whose bad behavior? You can just read earlier on in the CH thread or you could have read it yesterday in the FW Salamander thread.

Admittedly, the second one was responding to flamebaiting but still. It doesn't help the community think better of you when you do it.

Morally I think they have every right. Legally I'll leave to the courts to decide.

What I do know is that if the doomseer model had been given an elf head option (with or without fantasy helmet) he could have sold it to warhammer fans as well. Increasing the potential buyers a lot for very little extra work...

He could even have sold it as a fantasy model in the main pic, which happened to have a space helmet option as well.

Ah well.

AndrewC wrote:mikhaila, at the end of the day he still has bills to pay. What is he supposed to do?

Shut up shop and and file for bankruptcy? This has the same effect as continuing to put out 'not-minatures' and get sued. GW wins in either case.

The issue of whether he is legally entitled to do so rests in court and will be started next week, 11th I think, let the judge & jury decide.

IF CHS is proved to be right, I doubt that anyone who is proGW/antiCHS will change their minds and suddenly support them and vice versa.

Cheers

Andrew

I think this a nice summation, well put.

Grimstonefire wrote:Morally I think they have every right. Legally I'll leave to the courts to decide.

I definitely have to disagree here.

I don't think that you "morally" have a right to create models directly based upon someone else's ideas, and profit off that.

But I do think I have a double standard as if it had been an improvement upon the concept or expressed differently, rather than just a pale shadow of an imitation based upon the original I would find it more acceptable.

Legally, well no one can answer that because it's being tested right now and until it's resolved we don't really know whose side the law falls on. Like 99% of the people here I'm not legally trained. The number of people saying that GW will 'lose their IP' and that 'CH are guilty' just annoy me, people are reacting to something that isn't a real reflection of reality. GW won't lose their IP, and it's a civil matter not a criminal one.

Morally?! That's language is getting a bit heavy. Is what they do immoral? I don't see that GW or anyone else is being hurt.

I don't claim to know which way it will go, but I would like to see Chapterhouse remain in business after this. That's because I don't believe they harm GW and are beneficial to us as hobbyists. From a hobbyist point of view they can only enrich the hobby, not harm it. If you don't like their stuff don't buy it, but it's there for other people.

I can't see why people would be against Chapterhouse or making such an effort to brand them as being obviously in the wrong unless it's because they mistakenly worry about a perceived threat (loss of GW IP) or because they are GW fanoys, or because they have taken a personal dislike to CH. Because from what I can see, the hobby can either have GW and CH, or just GW, so one in which CH remains is good.

AndrewC wrote:Kanluwen, you may be reading my post the wrong way.

Mikhaila seemed to be inferring that CHS should have shut up shop until the court case is over, GW wants CHS shut down any way possible, I was trying to point out that closing means that CHS goes bust, and adding additional sculpts isn't going to change anything if they lose the case.

'Entitled', you've never been at the job centre when it's signing on time then.....(Sorry that may be UK humour, if it doesn't translate across the water I apologise)

The point about retraction is the holier than thou stances taken in the other thread that prompted this one. The absolutes.

'Anti' CHS could you please point me in the direction of some of the sources of their bad behaviour, because all I've seen to date is bear baiting.

Cheers

Andrew

No, Mikhaila was saying that when involved in a lawsuit, doing things that help the other guy win their case is stupid.) Sell the frigging "space elf psychic witch for use with futuristic wargames". Don't link the damn thing to GW in anyway, and give them something else to take to court. JMHO.

Sales of the model probably don't depend much on a bit of GWesque fluff.

They seem to be looking for trouble basically.

Can we make a new forum section just for chapter house threads? Come on, they make models that GW doesnt want to do. Morality has little to do with it

Trademark law has nothing to do with right or wrong, its a set of business rules decided upon. STEALING someone's sculpt is different than creating your own sculpts *based* upon anothers idea

Whats next, they make a model of a "cup" and someone yells at them for stealing the idea of a drinking glass? This kind of stuff happens every second in the real world. A competitor makes something so you copy them then develop something they dont have.. They copy you, etc, etc

I don't even like the term "legality" because that has more of a connotation with criminal courts than civil.. There is very little morality involved in civil cases as they are based upon something other than values and mores that criminal law is more concerned with

Yes you can do something illegal in a civil court sense, but jay walking is against the law.. That doesnt mean youre an immoral person

Tone down the rhetoric imo or.. make a new chapter house forum section

Howard A Treesong wrote:Legally, well no one can answer that because it's being tested right now and until it's resolved we don't really know whose side the law falls on. Like 99% of the people here I'm not legally trained. The number of people saying that GW will 'lose their IP' and that 'CH are guilty' just annoy me, people are reacting to something that isn't a real reflection of reality. GW won't lose their IP, and it's a civil matter not a criminal one.

To be fair, most people aren't saying "GW will lose their IP". They're saying that GW will lose control over what is done with their IP. There's a difference.

Morally?! That's language is getting a bit heavy. Is what they do immoral? I don't see that GW or anyone else is being hurt.

It's really not "getting a bit heavy" to say that there's a moral component here.
If you're at college and you write a thesis that draws heavily upon the writings of someone else and you claim it is 100% your own--you're committing plagiarism.

I don't claim to know which way it will go, but I would like to see Chapterhouse remain in business after this. That's because I don't believe they harm GW and are beneficial to us as hobbyists. From a hobbyist point of view they can only enrich the hobby, not harm it. If you don't like their stuff don't buy it, but it's there for other people.

From my hobbyist point of view they're not "enriching" it. They're just dumping stuff in there and hoping it sticks or someone will buy it.

I say this as someone who likes Scibor and MaxMini's stuff. I won't buy them, simply because I don't need them, but they are nice additions or alternative views of the source material.

Chapterhouse is just imitating (fairly poorly at that) the style that is already present. The second GW makes stuff readily available that CH is selling, I don't see there being a market for CH anymore.
I feel the same way about Pig Iron for that matter. But at least Pig Iron is branching out and making their own complete line and supposedly a game too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kirasu wrote:Can we make a new forum section just for chapter house threads? Come on, they make models that GW doesnt want to do. Morality has little to do with it

Trademark law has nothing to do with right or wrong, its a set of business rules decided upon. STEALING someone's sculpt is different than creating your own sculpts *based* upon anothers idea

Whats next, they make a model of a "cup" and someone yells at them for stealing the idea of a drinking glass? This kind of stuff happens every second in the real world. A competitor makes something so you copy them then develop something they dont have.. They copy you, etc, etc

I don't even like the term "legality" because that has more of a connotation with criminal courts than civil.. There is very little morality involved in civil cases as they are based upon something other than values and mores that criminal law is more concerned with

Yes you can do something illegal in a civil court sense, but jay walking is against the law.. That doesnt mean youre an immoral person

Tone down the rhetoric imo or.. make a new chapter house forum section

If you're going to say "tone down the rhetoric" take your own advice.

This concept of "GW doesn't want to make the models" is absurd.

And again: you're calling Chapterhouse a competitor. That's not the case. They're currently in a symbiotic relationship with GW. If GW goes, CH goes.

A competitor is Privateer Press, West Wind Studios, Corvus Belli, etc. Companies producing their own games and lines.

Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that you "morally" have a right to create models directly based upon someone else's ideas, and profit off that.

That's funny because that's exactly how Citadel miniatures got started. They made miniatures for other people's games, D&D in particular. So let's not pretend that GW has any moral ascendancy here.

Oh boy, this topic has a flamebait written all over it. Legal and moral are two different things. While it's legal to visit an... ahem... abode of women of ill-repute in the state of Nevada, many people see it as immoral and wrong.

Talking about ethics is as good as talking about religion, politics or diet during Thanksgiving dinner with your ex-wife's vegan mother. Everyone marches to a different tune.

GW didn't like what Chapterhouse is doing so they sue. Chapterhouse defends itself. Let the lawyers work it out. [sarcasm mode on]May he who has the deepest pockets win! That's the American way![sarcasm mode off]

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that you "morally" have a right to create models directly based upon someone else's ideas, and profit off that.

That's funny because that's exactly how Citadel miniatures got started. They made miniatures for other people's games, D&D in particular. So let's not pretend that GW has any moral ascendancy here.

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Maxstreel wrote:Oh boy, this topic has a flamebait written all over it. Legal and moral are two different things. While it's legal to visit an... ahem... abode of women of ill-repute in the state of Nevada, many people see it as immoral and wrong.

Talking about ethics is as good as talking about religion, politics or diet during Thanksgiving dinner with your ex-wife's vegan mother. Everyone marches to a different tune.

GW didn't like what Chapterhouse is doing so they sue. Chapterhouse defends itself. Let the lawyers work it out. [sarcasm mode on]May he who has the deepest pockets win! That's the American way![sarcasm mode off]

Some of us were almost prescient about it.

and by "some of us" I mean "me" and by "almost" I mean "completely".

Wierd.

There are several companies producing after market parts for 40K, such as CH, Bitspudlo and MaxMini.

The only difference is that CH have boldly labelled the parts according to GW's names and the others haven't.

CH say they took legal advice about this approach before they started.

GW's legal department thinks CH's lawyers got it wrong and have sued CH.

The case begins very soon.

That is not a moral matter, it is a legal matter.

If it is immoral to produce after market bits for 40K, why are Bitspudlo and MaxMini not immoral?

Kanluwen wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Legally, well no one can answer that because it's being tested right now and until it's resolved we don't really know whose side the law falls on. Like 99% of the people here I'm not legally trained. The number of people saying that GW will 'lose their IP' and that 'CH are guilty' just annoy me, people are reacting to something that isn't a real reflection of reality. GW won't lose their IP, and it's a civil matter not a criminal one.

To be fair, most people aren't saying "GW will lose their IP". They're saying that GW will lose control over what is done with their IP. There's a difference.

Not to be rude, but you don't appear to quite grasp the subtlety of IP here. IP rights are not like interests in real property; if CHS prevails in their suit they won't be getting an easement on GW's IP. Since the boundaries of IP are what you are able to exclude others from, this loss of control is potentially a loss of the IP itself.

Kanluwen wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Morally?! That's language is getting a bit heavy. Is what they do immoral? I don't see that GW or anyone else is being hurt.

It's really not "getting a bit heavy" to say that there's a moral component here.
If you're at college and you write a thesis that draws heavily upon the writings of someone else and you claim it is 100% your own--you're committing plagiarism.

Good artists copy, great artists steal. (Hehe, "We have always been shameless at stealing great ideas... )

Kanluwen wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
I don't claim to know which way it will go, but I would like to see Chapterhouse remain in business after this. That's because I don't believe they harm GW and are beneficial to us as hobbyists. From a hobbyist point of view they can only enrich the hobby, not harm it. If you don't like their stuff don't buy it, but it's there for other people.

From my hobbyist point of view they're not "enriching" it. They're just dumping stuff in there and hoping it sticks or someone will buy it.

I say this as someone who likes Scibor and MaxMini's stuff. I won't buy them, simply because I don't need them, but they are nice additions or alternative views of the source material.

Chapterhouse is just imitating (fairly poorly at that) the style that is already present. The second GW makes stuff readily available that CH is selling, I don't see there being a market for CH anymore.
I feel the same way about Pig Iron for that matter. But at least Pig Iron is branching out and making their own complete line and supposedly a game too.

It's almost as if you didn't like CHS... Given that the difference between "enriching" and "dumping stuff in there and hoping it sticks" is wholly subjective...

I do think that CH should have made '28mm scale alien broodmother' (tevigon) and said 'compatable with XYZ rather than saying :THIS IS FOR 40K WOOT SCREW GW IP! is asking for a slap

The whole moral thing is a bit... well, if GW was a little operation run by a bunch of dedicated guys rather than the corporate entity it has become, it would be easier to say that CHS are morally wrong. As it stands, it's more based on whether... Actually, what is it based on? Why is anyone outraged by CHS's actions? They are making their own sculpts, not making moulds and selling knock-offs. Sure it's not original, but immoral? Hm.

Legally, opinions don't mean much to me, no offence to anyone intended. The courts ruling will be the courts ruling and will be based on the work of the lawyers. I'll certainly be interested in the outcome.

What seems far more interesting to me is what people think will be the consequences of a win for GW, or more so, a win for CHS.

I don't like CHS as a company. I don't know the owners or artists personally, so that's not a factor.

I don't like them mainly for the reason that I stated(it looks, for the most part, like poor imitations based upon higher quality work and low quality 'original' ideas) and their behavior that they've been presenting in their interactions with criticism over their history of posting things here.

To further clarify:
I consider "enriching" taking the original idea and improving upon it. I'd point to Scibor's Celtic Warriors and Knights or MicroArts Studio's "Iron Brotherhood" for things which are "enriching". They're very clearly 40k, but at the same time...they've got a bit of something 'else' mixed in if that makes sense.

I'd probably have different feelings on CHS if they were to produce:
A) Higher quality product.
B) Their *winkwink*Doomseer*winkwink* improved upon ideas that already exist within 40k and created something that is visibly pleasing and different, but still recognizably '40k'.
or
C) They created their own game system and world.

Kilkrazy wrote:

If it is immoral to produce after market bits for 40K, why are Bitspudlo and MaxMini not immoral?

They're not in the US?

It's the same reason we don't see GW go after those guys from Taiwan with the painting service on eBay that have made models that LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THINGS IN GW BOOKS.

Chapter House was the dummy that set up his operation in the US.

Manchu wrote:Redirecting discussion from the N&R thread, which should be about the products themselves.

This thread is about whether CHS should be making them or not and whether GW might have recourse under the law against CHS for making them.

I realize people have strong feelings on this matter but remember to comply with all DakkaDakka rules -- including being polite to other users.

GW wouldn't have an issue if they cared to support thier own products, instead of worrying about pimping out Lickies and Chewies of the Flavor of the Month.

These clowns introduce an army, six months later, the thing is insolvant, and then there is no more discussion on the matter. Then a new army of the exact same thing comes out, or unit, or figure, ( Space marine, version 666 holding a skull, done by so and so.)

They only are trying to crush competition because they want to "water down" the market and leave the 40K stuff to themselves.


Remember when the hobby was 95% DIY, and they even encouraged players to modify, kitbash, and come up with thier own stuff, "Because its about playing and having fun?"


Those days are gone. GW is being run out of the gaming business by a bunch of gakkers that are more concerned with turning a profit on the back of thier fans then they are about support.

Any other company would have been sued by now for releasing a defective product. I say it's defective, because based on thier own allusion, they will never produce, publish, and release a solid well encompassing product that supports the whole range of models, armies, and games.

As for thier "Battle Bunkers"? "Hobby Centers", or wtf they are now? !@#$ them too.

Chapter house is doing 100% better work then some of thier sculpters are pulling off, they don't like it, so then they are trying to use the law to stifle creativity on derivitive work.

We've seen it with most any example you can think of from of all things, "POWER ARMOR" to "SKULLS" to entire game systems.

that its about anything other then self preservation of a good market, and to keep others out of it is all it's about.

Of course, when you see CH come in here and flaunt the stuff, it doesn't do anything to engraciate them with the players, and that aw shucks attitude is only going so far. THEY could do to learn a lession to stifle some of thier internal exhuberance over standing up to GW in legal stuff, and concentrate on keeping that conversation out of the general public.

I for one don't care about thier internal memos, lawsuits, etc. BUT when it interferes with hearing about new stuff, sculpting, and quality control, I tend to want to tell CH to S.T.F.U. and go away. Because then it's no longer about the product, it becomes about the namebrand. Chapterhouse is not !@#$ing Nike's, or Addidas, or Timberland, so they can get off of the moral high horse and concentrate on quality, and not showboat antics.

My 2 cents.

Worglock wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

If it is immoral to produce after market bits for 40K, why are Bitspudlo and MaxMini not immoral?

They're not in the US?

It's the same reason we don't see GW go after those guys from Taiwan with the painting service on eBay that have made models that LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THINGS IN GW BOOKS.

Chapter House was the dummy that set up his operation in the US.

Geographical location has nothing to do with morality.

It's a simple question to the users.

Why is it immoral for CH to make bits for 40K, but it is moral for Bitspudlo and Kromlech (I don't know all the names) to make bits for 40K?

I know some people dislike the quality of the parts. That is not a moral issue.

And here I was thinking this had already been explained.

The morality comes from the fact that CH isn't 'making bits for 40k'.
They're copying the style of already existing bits and ideas, and doing nothing to improve upon it when they produce it.

It's all a matter of perception. If someone adds their own panache to something and makes it better--it's more acceptable.

When you just flat copy it or even--god forbid--make a worse version of the already existing idea, you're going to get tut-tutted at.

I can see people's moral concern with aping the style of GW minis in the doomseer, but I think that the problems seem to stem more from a personal dislike of the company, owner, or product than actually caring that much about the rights of creativity.

The other thing that gets me is this notion that CHS has somehow added nothing of value to GW's ideas when they sculpted the doomseer. If that were really true, than nobody would buy the CHS models, given it being roughly the same cost as a GW one, with far less hassle.

Any demand that exists for the CHS model is for the differences, or what CHS adds.

And that's all I have to say about that...

Kilkrazy wrote:

Worglock wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

If it is immoral to produce after market bits for 40K, why are Bitspudlo and MaxMini not immoral?

They're not in the US?

It's the same reason we don't see GW go after those guys from Taiwan with the painting service on eBay that have made models that LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THINGS IN GW BOOKS.

Chapter House was the dummy that set up his operation in the US.

Geographical location has nothing to do with morality.

It's a simple question to the users.

Why is it immoral for CH to make bits for 40K, but it is moral for Bitspudlo and Kromlech (I don't know all the names) to make bits for 40K?

I know some people dislike the quality of the parts. That is not a moral issue.

It probably isn't, but people are going to stretch and twist and reach until they hurt themselves to justify what they want to do. Whether it's "sticking it to the man", "being a law abiding citizen" (Fark Troll Style #34521) or "helping the little guy" is irrelevant.

The only reason this gets talked about at all is to give a cast of usual suspects a reason to scream past each other. Give it time, and no one will care about CHS any more, because those guys (the veterans of a thousand forum wars) will be screaming past each other about the next batch of stupid that rolls down a tube.

I believe the moral component lies in this:

GW hired someone (or "someones") to create a visual and fictional concept.

GW produced models to represent this concept in several different (non-exhaustive) sculpts.

CHS produced a model to represent this same concept and that model is not a mere recast of any Citadel sculpt.

To me, any discussion of the sculpt is a red herring. Any discussion of laws regarding IP is also a red herring.

The issue is that CHS appropriated -- i.e., stole -- the visual and fictional concept created by someone (or rather, a few someones) working for GW.

It doesn't matter whether there is civil or criminal liability for this theft. As someone pointed out earlier, "illegal" and "immoral" are not synonymous.

But even little children know that stealing someone else's idea is wrong.

Let's not pretend that we are jurors who have never heard of Warhammer 40k, much less a Farseer. Everyone participating in this thread knows exactly what's going on here. Everyone here knows that, but for the existence of the visual and fictional concept of the Farseer, the Doomseer model would not exist -- nor would even be possible for it to exist, since it's creators did not come up with any iota of the design upon which it is based.

I see a lot of equivocation, about CHS or GW regarding their business practices, for example, that is an attempt to get around the basic point:

CHS took what I believe is a specific and unique visual and fictional idea that they did not come up with and are attempting to profit from it.

I like Chapterhouse's products, and I like their Eldar model, but I don't understand why they continue to blatantly use GW Copyrighted naming for their products. That's definite infringement and hard to excuse, and what's getting them into trouble. It'd be easier just to call their "Eldar Doomseer" a "Space Elf Sorceress" and leave it at that.

They wouldn't have any problems if they stopped blatantly spelling out "We are making Warhammer 40,000 Miniatures" despite not having license or permission to do so and just subtly renamed their products and stopped insisting on using GW copyrighted naming on their products. It's almost as if they think people won't know what their stuff does if they don't spell out "This is for Warhammer 40,000".

The visuals themselves can be explained away in *most* cases as "inspiration" or applicable to more than just 40k, many of the shields for instance could fit into almost any fantasy based miniatures game. There's a lot of things they could get away with without being able to be nailed down for blatant copying, but their use of naming conventions is really what I think is getting them in trouble.

@Vaktathi: Tha's exactly how I felt pre-Doomseer. To me, the Doomseer is the sculptural equivalent of saying "We make Citadel miniatures." (Again, this isn't meant to be a legal argument to convince people who know nothing about 40k.)

Kanluwen wrote:

AndrewC wrote:Kanluwen, you may be reading my post the wrong way.

Mikhaila seemed to be inferring that CHS should have shut up shop until the court case is over, GW wants CHS shut down any way possible, I was trying to point out that closing means that CHS goes bust, and adding additional sculpts isn't going to change anything if they lose the case.

No, he was inferring that CHS shouldn't have released this particular model in the way that it was originally done(with the shop description being of a 'Doomseer' from the Craftworld of Malan'tai, seeking to destroy the Doom of Malan'tai) and this particular model, which is pretty clearly an Eldar Farseer, might have been better to keep on ice until after the case.

'Entitled', you've never been at the job centre when it's signing on time then.....(Sorry that may be UK humour, if it doesn't translate across the water I apologise)

No, I got the humour. But it still doesn't change that you're not legally 'entitled' to be able to use other people's work to do your own without some serious loopholes to go through.

The point about retraction is the holier than thou stances taken in the other thread that prompted this one. The absolutes.

I don't think we're reading the same threads. The legality of things will always be kind of in flux in this area. There's always going to be people questioning it.
Morality and ethics, however, will always lead to "holier than thou" stances.

'Anti' CHS could you please point me in the direction of some of the sources of their bad behaviour, because all I've seen to date is bear baiting.

Whose bad behavior? You can just read earlier on in the CH thread or you could have read it yesterday in the FW Salamander thread.

Admittedly, the second one was responding to flamebaiting but still. It doesn't help the community think better of you when you do it.

Kan, I am curious to what you think you read in the FW Salamander thread. "Was that post really necessary" is pretty much what I typed. In what was does that qualify as bad behavior?

Vaktathi wrote:I like Chapterhouse's products, and I like their Eldar model, but I don't understand why they continue to blatantly use GW Copyrighted naming for their products. That's definite infringement and hard to excuse, and what's getting them into trouble. It'd be easier just to call their "Eldar Doomseer" a "Space Elf Sorceress" and leave it at that.

They wouldn't have any problems if they stopped blatantly spelling out "We are making Warhammer 40,000 Miniatures" despite not having license or permission to do so and just subtly renamed their products and stopped insisting on using GW copyrighted naming on their products. It's almost as if they think people won't know what their stuff does if they don't spell out "This is for Warhammer 40,000".

The visuals themselves can be explained away in *most* cases as "inspiration" or applicable to more than just 40k, many of the shields for instance could fit into almost any fantasy based miniatures game. There's a lot of things they could get away with without being able to be nailed down for blatant copying, but their use of naming conventions is really what I think is getting them in trouble.

I totally agree with this. In many ways, Chapterhouse is a fairly standard small-time miniatures company. Some of the products they make are quite good. Some of their products are decidedly not good. What makes it different, and what gets CHS in trouble, is that they insist on using trademarked GW names on their products. Plenty of other companies make models to be used with 40k and are doing fine, because they don't call them such. Something that every other company besides CHS seems to realize is that wargaming is an incredibly isolated market. If someone ends up at your site, looking for aftermarket bits, then they're going to know what to use them for. Scibor doesn't label his his shoulder pads as "Shoulder pads to be used with Games Workshop Space Marine Terminators," and is still making money. CHS got caught using trademarked names and, more than likely, infringing on GW's intellectual property. The fact that GW names and products are still plastered all over their website, while they are currently involved in a court case over that very issue, shows either a crippling level of apathy or untenable arrogance.

Or, depending on how things work out, absolute brilliance.

Chapterhouse wrote:
Kan, I am curious to what you think you read in the FW Salamander thread. "Was that post really necessary" is pretty much what I typed. In what was does that qualify as bad behavior?

I wasn't saying you in specific were responsible for the shenanigans that started up in that thread. I was meaning more that the "pro-CHS" crowd isn't as blameless in this whole mess as some seem to believe. I should have clarified it a bit better.

There's rabblerousers on both sides. It's why I've been trying my best to stay as far away from commenting on the legal issues as I can and just commenting on the models themselves(like you saw today in the APC thread).

I know I'm seen as a 'rabid GW fanboy and troll' and most of my criticisms will always be taken by people with that in the back of their minds. Which is why I'll stick to staying out of commenting on most things aside from the models.

OK, I understand know (yeah you didnt phrase it very well before).

No harm no foul.

Just as an aside, saying you don't like or disagree with something is not trolling, even if someone is being very strident. Trolling is posting something with the explicit purpose of getting angry responses from others. Obviously, it's not always possible to figure out what someone actually intended when they posted, which is why we're lenient. But expressing a critique in a strong way is not definitive evidence of trolling. I think it's easy to miss that distinction when emotions run high.

And emotions do run high when it comes to CHS. But it's already been pointed out why. It's not because of some special, inexplicable hatred from the peanut gallery carefully arranged by the Illuminati. CHS made a conscious decision to do business differently than other similar companies. This is simply one of the consequences.

Yes, indeed.

At the moment the case is looking a bit iffy for GW and, if they lose, the whole CHS got caught using trademarked names and, more than likely, infringing on GW's intellectual property argument is dead in the water. Because by law they would not have been doing that.

Let's not worry about that until the court hands down its decision, though. It's irrelevant to the topic which is the morality of the situation.

I understand Manchu's position, which is that the Doomseer is a copy of the idea of a Farseer which no-one else could have invented by himself, or at least GW invented first.

I do not understand why other people are slamming CH for making shoulder pads, when they don't slam Scibor for making shoulder pads.

I don't accept the position that a good riff off an idea is morally better than a bad riff. Offering after market wargame parts that are aesthetically inferior simply does not have the potential ill consequences of offering after market airplane parts that are technically inferior.

I am in agreement with you, KK, regarding the shoulder pads and other kits (of which, I have bought a few myself). The Chimera wheel kit is a great example: whether well- or poorly-executed, it's not a total lifting of any GW concept. The fact that it works with a GW kits does not seem a moral issue to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact, I think the Chimera kit is on the far point of the "okay to do" end of the spectrum while the Doomseer is on the far point of the "not okay" end. The rest is somewhere in the middle. That's my spectrum anyway and -- again -- it has nothing to do with any actual or even speculative legal analysis. By "okay" I mean moral or, actually, ethical is probably a better word.

Can someone explain to me how these two are similar? Looks to me like *something* in armour that happens to have a vaguely similar helmet to something from the eldar range, but definitely not any of the models below.

It's why I think there is a moral argument to be made for allowing people to sculpt something that is say 80% remotely close and 20% vaguely similar.

Basically I really don't see what the big issue is with this model as it's really not that similar. Look at any of the Avatars of War models and tell me theirs aren't closer to GW IP than this is.

The issue with this model is the name. If it had not had 'seer' anywhere in the name he could have sold it as anything. It's why I said having an elf head would be good. If I still collected High Elves and it had an elf head I would have bought it.

I'm not a lawyer, but this one looks a bit iffier, legally. But what do I know?

Grimstonefire wrote:
Look at any of the Avatars of War models and tell me theirs aren't closer to GW IP than this is.

Strawman.

Even though AOW models look like their GW counterparts GW cannot really lay claim to the concepts of Dwarfs, Orcs, Elves, Goblins etc. whereas they quite clearly can with Space Marines for example.

Kilkrazy wrote: I do not understand why other people are slamming CH for making shoulder pads, when they don't slam Scibor for making shoulder pads.

I think we've hit the heart of it. There really is no difference between CH and Scibor, product-wise. It's all presentation, and therefore, semantics. If GW hadn't took CH to court, then this wouldn't be a big deal and we wouldn't be discussing it. I think that many people (aside from those that hate CHS blindly) feel that Chapterhouse and crew are not handling the situation in the way that they (the public) would like them to.

Balance wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but this one looks a bit iffier, legally. But what do I know?

If that was the case, then GW would've been dragged down the street years ago. Anyone want to bring out the similarity between Tyranids and Geiger's Alien? What about the "inspiration" of SM being Lucas' Storm troopers? Did David Morrell (the author of Rambo) have issue with GW's Sly Marbo lifting the idea of John Rambo?

Legally, CH didnt copy GW's sculpt, nor used parts from a GW model to create their product.

Morally, GW doesnt own the concept of the elf race, so CH didnt steal anything that GW owns. GW cant own runes either.

Ethically, I dont see CH calling their sculpt an Eldar and trying to sell it as such.

As much as GW's fanbois dont want to hear it, CH didnt do anything wrong/wronger (sp) than what GW has done.

Spacemanvic wrote:GW's fanbois

We could do without this sort of thing, thank you.

Grimstonefire wrote:Can someone explain to me how these two are similar?

Sure, the second is a poor imitation of the first.

Manchu wrote:

Grimstonefire wrote:Can someone explain to me how these two are similar?

Sure, the second is a poor imitation of the first.

Actually, I much rather prefer the CH sculpt, but to each his own. I cant stand GW's festooing a model with ";skullz" as a stand in for "great" sculpting. As to the GW eldar model, Ive seen the same style now for years, cant GW come up with something more original/impressive? Same can be said of the art in the 'dexes. Id like to see new art, not the stuff from the 80's and 90's recycled. I want/expect more from GW.

As for aesthetics, anyone remember GW's first sculpts for RT? They were crude and fugly. GW has grown in terms of model execution, but they seem content to stay where they are stylistically. Id like to see more dynamic poses, maybe abandonment of "heroic scale" and more realistic proportions.

Never mind, straying from topic.

To OP, my opinion is CH would have nothing to worry about.

Kan, Mik, I owe you an apology, I appear to have mis-interpreted your posts.

Yes I admit, poor timing, but unfortunately I believe discovery has already been completed, which means that although the timing and presentation of the model is debatably atrocious it can't be included in the case. Any lawyers who can comment on that please do so.

Like you I have tried to steer away from what is right and moral and stick to what is legal, now I believe that the legal system of USA has legal rights, and one of those rights is the entitlement to the freedom of expression, until such time as the manner in which you present that freedom is against a prescribed set of boundaries, ie Law, you are entitled to do so. CHS has the right to do something until such time they are proven in a court that they cannot. Until the court rules one way or another, then to my mind, they are entitled to produce almost whatever they want as long as it is not a direct copy of an existing product. What irks me is that I see the 'not a' S-Scorpion as a greater rendition in emphasis and style than the 'not a' Seer. However, I've not seen the same backlash.

"Getting away with" presumes guilt, which does not appear certain at this point and seems unlikely based on the legal opinions that Biccat, Weeble and Polonius have been kind enough to provide. "Entitlement" is probably just as bad, this is a huge gray area and I for one will be eagerly awaiting reports as they are provided.

Cheers

Andrew

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Really?
Moorcock and Tolkien would tend to disagree. If we stretch it a bit Lucas and Heinlein wouldn´t be amused either. None of them got a licence.

Legally, CH didnt copy GW's sculpt, nor used parts from a GW model to create their product.

Morally, GW doesnt own the concept of the elf race, so CH didnt steal anything that GW owns. GW cant own runes either.

Ethically, I dont see CH calling their sculpt an Eldar and trying to sell it as such.

As much as GW's fanbois dont want to hear it, CH didnt do anything wrong/wronger (sp) than what GW has done.

Exactly!

Where is the difference between Tolkiens various sea/ranger/high Eldar and GWs high/wood elfs vs GWs Farseer and CHS Doomseer?
Who has not used whos ideas as inspiration for sales purposes? Who has given whom licences?

Grimtuff wrote:

Grimstonefire wrote:
Look at any of the Avatars of War models and tell me theirs aren't closer to GW IP than this is.

Strawman.

Even though AOW models look like their GW counterparts GW cannot really lay claim to the concepts of Dwarfs, Orcs, Elves, Goblins etc. whereas they quite clearly can with Space Marines for example.

I'm glad this was finaly mentioned. GW's ideas are far from original, and they've been recycled since the beginning of fiction. I am a bit confused why Chapterhouse insists on using GW terms and trademarks, but I suppose the owner of chapterhouse didn't want to label his product with a name that resembles "sci-fi knight palidin warrior roman guantlets".

I see why the suit is happening, but I just don't see why they can't settle on a compromise. Chapterhouse isn't stealing food from Games Workshop's mouth. Hell, if anything, they're helping feed them.

The example has been brought up countless times about the Tyranid codex. Half of the fething units listed in the codex have no model for them. So, Chapterhouse creates a model that could easily be recognized as a Tyranofex or some sort of Harpey. Finally, it is impossible to field an entire army of these creatures, so the consumer will HAVE to turn to Games Workshop for the overwelming majority of unit choices. Basically, Chapterhouse is generating an interest for armies that lack propper model support. With them, there's no excuse to say something like "I would buy an entire Tyranid army if this super nasty unit actually had a model, as I either lack the skills to convert a stock model or am plain right lazy".

Edited because what I said was completly wrong and they did have a licence either directly from the holders, Tolkien Estate or from a third party, Chaosium, which was why Moorcock was annoyed, he licenced Chaosium and they the 'sub contracted' off the back of it.

I still can't paint though

Cheers

Andrew

Guildsman wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote: I do not understand why other people are slamming CH for making shoulder pads, when they don't slam Scibor for making shoulder pads.

I think we've hit the heart of it. There really is no difference between CH and Scibor, product-wise. It's all presentation, and therefore, semantics. If GW hadn't took CH to court, then this wouldn't be a big deal and we wouldn't be discussing it. I think that many people (aside from those that hate CHS blindly) feel that Chapterhouse and crew are not handling the situation in the way that they (the public) would like them to.

I'm assuming that CH are handling the situation in the way their legal advisors would like them to.

If not, there will be tears before bedtime.

Pyriel- wrote:

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Really?
Moorcock and Tolkien would tend to disagree. If we stretch it a bit Lucas and Heinlein wouldn´t be amused either. None of them got a licence.

I'm sorry, what?
You really need to learn what you're talking about.
Citadel DID produce model ranges for those properties(or at least the RPGs associated with them), under license.

Now of course, you're not trying to talk about that though. You're trying the typical "Well if GW used X as inspiration when building their ideas, then Chapterhouse can use those ideas when creating their models!". Which is just a big huge strawman.

Spacemanvic wrote:

Balance wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but this one looks a bit iffier, legally. But what do I know?

If that was the case, then GW would've been dragged down the street years ago. Anyone want to bring out the similarity between Tyranids and Geiger's Alien? What about the "inspiration" of SM being Lucas' Storm troopers? Did David Morrell (the author of Rambo) have issue with GW's Sly Marbo lifting the idea of John Rambo?

Legally, CH didnt copy GW's sculpt, nor used parts from a GW model to create their product.

Morally, GW doesnt own the concept of the elf race, so CH didnt steal anything that GW owns. GW cant own runes either.

Ethically, I dont see CH calling their sculpt an Eldar and trying to sell it as such.

As much as GW's fanbois dont want to hear it, CH didnt do anything wrong/wronger (sp) than what GW has done.

Fair enough. The main issue seems to be the degree to which it's imitating something.

Giger's Alien->Tryanids: There's some definite design similarities, but only in broad terms. Tyranids are six-limbed, have angular extended heads instead of rounded extended heads (sometimes ribbed, sometimes smooth). No sign of the 'double jaws' on Tyranid models, and the ranged bio-weapons are something the Aliens aliens don't seem to have.

This is why I generally stay out of these discussions. There's a ton of grey areas with these kind of discussions. It's only really 'clear' when someone is recasting, and even then some jurisdictions have different laws.

As for your other examples:

Other than being armored, I don't see Star Wars Storm Troopers and GW Space Marines being very similar. One's a faceless army, the other's warrior-monks.

The Rambo example is generally an 'homage' but, yes, I guess the various rights holders could make a case.

In general, I hope CH wins the pending litigation but I really don't have a dog in the fight here.

Kanluwen wrote:I'd probably have different feelings on CHS if they were to produce:
A) Higher quality product.
B) Their *winkwink*Doomseer*winkwink* improved upon ideas that already exist within 40k and created something that is visibly pleasing and different, but still recognizably '40k'.
or
C) They created their own game system and world.

I'd like to point out that this list is entirely based on subjective opinion. Would you agree that an individual using the same reasoning as you but with opposite opinions about points A, B, and C is wrong to think that CHS is morally justified? If the answer is no, you're simply descending into marginalizing the equally valid opinions of others.

What CHS is doing doesn't come close to violating the mores of Western society, which is really all we (which is to say those of us that live in Western society) can in all likelihood expect to agree on in terms of morality, and we probably wouldn't end up in agreement even then. So is there a purpose to this thread? I don't really think so if the point is to talk about whether or not you feel what Chapterhouse is doing is "wrong" in some sense of the word outside of a strictly legal interpretation.

We can make a big list of everybody that responds and the OP can tally it up and see which side wins for all that will accomplish. Put me down for a "No" as in, no, I don't think what Chapterhouse is doing is wrong.

If you want to talk about what harm Chapterhouse is causing, I think that's a fine discussion. If you want to talk about what effect Chapterhouse is having and/or will have on the wargaming community, the industry, or the whole world, that's something to talk about. A debate about those issues may or may not accomplish something, but sounding off about the "morality" of what CHS is doing is not productive.

Kanluwen wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that you "morally" have a right to create models directly based upon someone else's ideas, and profit off that.

That's funny because that's exactly how Citadel miniatures got started. They made miniatures for other people's games, D&D in particular. So let's not pretend that GW has any moral ascendancy here.

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Almost. Citadel didn't obtain a license with TSR until 1984. By that time, Citadel had been creating and selling fantasy based miniatures for five years. At the time of Citadel's opening for business in 1979, there really was no other market for fantasy miniatures other than people playing games such as those created by TSR. Citadel didn't have any gaming system of their own at the time, and were merely piggybacking off of demand created by other companies (Warhammer Fantasy Battle debuted in 1983). I actually remember this stuff, as I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in the summer of 1978, before Citadel miniatures were even available. In fact, back in the early 1980's, you had to get Citadel miniatures through Ral Partha, since Citadel didn't manufacture or distribute their own minis in the USA.

weeble1000 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I'd probably have different feelings on CHS if they were to produce:
A) Higher quality product.
B) Their *winkwink*Doomseer*winkwink* improved upon ideas that already exist within 40k and created something that is visibly pleasing and different, but still recognizably '40k'.
or
C) They created their own game system and world.

I'd like to point out that this list is entirely based on subjective opinion. Would you agree that an individual using the same reasoning as you but with opposite opinions about points A, B, and C is wrong to think that CHS is morally justified? If the answer is no, you're simply descending into marginalizing the equally valid opinions of others.

What CHS is doing doesn't come close to violating the mores of Western society, which is really all we (which is to say those of us that live in Western society) can in all likelihood expect to agree on in terms of morality, and we probably wouldn't end up in agreement even then. So is there a purpose to this thread? I don't really think so if the point is to talk about whether or not you feel what Chapterhouse is doing is "wrong" in some sense of the word outside of a strictly legal interpretation.

We can make a big list of everybody that responds and the OP can tally it up and see which side wins for all that will accomplish. Put me down for a "No" as in, no, I don't think what Chapterhouse is doing is wrong.

If you want to talk about what harm Chapterhouse is causing, I think that's a fine discussion. If you want to talk about what effect Chapterhouse is having and/or will have on the wargaming community, the industry, or the whole world, that's something to talk about. A debate about those issues may or may not accomplish something, but sounding off about the "morality" of what CHS is doing is not productive.

And I'd like to point out this entire thread is your opinion.

Kanluwen wrote:When you just flat copy it or even--god forbid--make a worse version of the already existing idea, you're going to get tut-tutted at.

A "worse" version wouldn't be a copy, now would it? But first we need to define what we mean by copy so we have a common frame of reference. Wait, hasn't the government already attempted to do that? Yea, that's right, they're called laws. Oops, now we're back to a legal discussion. I'm sorry about that, why don't we go back to talking past each other.

Saldiven wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that you "morally" have a right to create models directly based upon someone else's ideas, and profit off that.

That's funny because that's exactly how Citadel miniatures got started. They made miniatures for other people's games, D&D in particular. So let's not pretend that GW has any moral ascendancy here.

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Almost. Citadel didn't obtain a license with TSR until 1984. By that time, Citadel had been creating and selling fantasy based miniatures for five years. At the time of Citadel's opening for business in 1979, there really was no other market for fantasy miniatures other than people playing games such as those created by TSR. Citadel didn't have any gaming system of their own at the time, and were merely piggybacking off of demand created by other companies. I actually remember this stuff, as I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in the summer of 1978, before Citadel miniatures were even available. In fact, back in the early 1980's, you had to get Citadel miniatures through Ral Partha, since Citadel didn't manufacture or distribute their own minis in the USA.

Before my time. I'm going off what I've been told over the years by veterans.

But by that same logic, it's likely they were in the same place as Avatar of War is. D&D was based largely off generally available mythos, Tolkien stuff, et al when it first started, wasn't it?

Kilkrazy wrote:There are several companies producing after market parts for 40K, such as CH, Bitspudlo and MaxMini.

The only difference is that CH have boldly labelled the parts according to GW's names and the others haven't.

CH say they took legal advice about this approach before they started.

GW's legal department thinks CH's lawyers got it wrong and have sued CH.

The case begins very soon.

That is not a moral matter, it is a legal matter.

If it is immoral to produce after market bits for 40K, why are Bitspudlo and MaxMini not immoral?

That sums it up. Quick and too the point

The single Eldar sculpt... that was pushing it IMO. Calling it a farseer or w/e. That was the line. That is the difference between CH and other companies

weeble1000 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:When you just flat copy it or even--god forbid--make a worse version of the already existing idea, you're going to get tut-tutted at.

A "worse" version wouldn't be a copy, now would it? But first we need to define what we mean by copy so we have a common frame of reference. Wait, hasn't the government already attempted to do that? Yea, that's right, they're called laws. Oops, now we're back to a legal discussion. I'm sorry about that, why don't we go back to talking past each other.

A "worse version" would be a poor copy.

Funny that. If you want to debate the actual legalistics, there's a thread for that. This is opinion time.

Kanluwen wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Really?
Moorcock and Tolkien would tend to disagree. If we stretch it a bit Lucas and Heinlein wouldn´t be amused either. None of them got a licence.

I'm sorry, what?
You really need to learn what you're talking about.
Citadel DID produce model ranges for those properties(or at least the RPGs associated with them), under license.

Now of course, you're not trying to talk about that though. You're trying the typical "Well if GW used X as inspiration when building their ideas, then Chapterhouse can use those ideas when creating their models!". Which is just a big huge strawman.

It isn't a straw man.

If GW copied their ideas from Source X, then CH can legitimately copy the same ideas from the same source.

If copying is wrong, both are equally guilty.

If GW got a licence, for Gandalf, say, they copied with legal permission. Some might say it was still unoriginal and thus immoral.

as a consumer I realize if CH wins prices may go down or it'll be easier to find non citadel / gw models that are moore cost effective (to put it mildly the price we pay for our plastic army men is fairly high vs materials cost. and we pay for the development cost with brb and codexes imo. so as a consumer i feel no responsibility to buy from gw (I do however feel an obligation to buy gw products from my local game shop as I like the owner and the facility so i buy to support them though this loyalty imo goes to about 1-2 products quarterly plus drinks every time I go in there) . so while I’ll still be buying gw products I’d have no problem augmenting armies and collecting whole new armies resulting in buying more codexes for said armies netting GW more money in the long run and me more armies to play with.

From a moral standpoint I’m torn. Putting aside the help to my own (usually empty… marriage does this, a warning to you single people out there) wallet . I think there is no grounds for GW to sue when they themselves are not producing the model in question… the only way to get some models is the aftermarket, and until gw addresses this then I am full on the chapterhouse side, or any other aftermarket manufacturer making a model that gw doesn’t for that matter) on the opposite side of the moral coin if GW makes the model I think a person making a knockoff but calling it something else is ok providing they come up with a reason for it. Maybe just say scifi decorative miniatures, however when you blatantly use the name of the model sold by gw and make it an obvious copy then you opened a can of legal worms… enter all these threads

Kanluwen wrote:And I'd like to point out this entire thread is your opinion.

Great, now we're starting to find some common ground. Why don't we try to provide some objective framework to our discussion. It's only my opinion, as you've pointed out, but I think that objective framework could be the harm, if any, caused by Chapterhouse's actions; speculation about the potential effects of Chapterhouse's business on something; or even just a straight yes or no vote on the "morality" of Chapterhouse's business so we can determine which side wins by virtue of a simple majority. What do you think? Or maybe we should discount everything everyone says as based purely on opinion and talk about how nothing is ultimately knowable because every person lives in a unique universe of its own perceptions.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Really?
Moorcock and Tolkien would tend to disagree. If we stretch it a bit Lucas and Heinlein wouldn´t be amused either. None of them got a licence.

I'm sorry, what?
You really need to learn what you're talking about.
Citadel DID produce model ranges for those properties(or at least the RPGs associated with them), under license.

Now of course, you're not trying to talk about that though. You're trying the typical "Well if GW used X as inspiration when building their ideas, then Chapterhouse can use those ideas when creating their models!". Which is just a big huge strawman.

It isn't a strawman.

The heck it isn't. Saying that GW's setting, which may be influenced by properties is the same as a flat copy is a complete and utter strawman.

If GW copied their ideas from Source X, then CH can legitimately copy the same ideas from the same source.
If copying is wrong, both are equally guilty.

Then show me proof of a direct copy, within the current range of GW models and background, and I'll be glad to call GW guilty.

If GW got a licence, for Gandalf, say, they copied with legal permission. Some might say it was still unoriginal and thus immoral.

Except now you're splitting hairs.

Working under license isn't "copying with legal permission", it's paying for the rights to produce a product based off a property.

Kanluwen wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that you "morally" have a right to create models directly based upon someone else's ideas, and profit off that.

That's funny because that's exactly how Citadel miniatures got started. They made miniatures for other people's games, D&D in particular. So let's not pretend that GW has any moral ascendancy here.

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Almost. Citadel didn't obtain a license with TSR until 1984. By that time, Citadel had been creating and selling fantasy based miniatures for five years. At the time of Citadel's opening for business in 1979, there really was no other market for fantasy miniatures other than people playing games such as those created by TSR. Citadel didn't have any gaming system of their own at the time, and were merely piggybacking off of demand created by other companies. I actually remember this stuff, as I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in the summer of 1978, before Citadel miniatures were even available. In fact, back in the early 1980's, you had to get Citadel miniatures through Ral Partha, since Citadel didn't manufacture or distribute their own minis in the USA.

Before my time. I'm going off what I've been told over the years by veterans.

But by that same logic, it's likely they were in the same place as Avatar of War is. D&D was based largely off generally available mythos, Tolkien stuff, et al when it first started, wasn't it?

Just like GW is largely taken from existing ideas: Space Marines had existed for almost 50 years in 1983; Chaos was something written largely about by Moorcock for 10+ years in 1983; Tyranids, genestealers in particular, are inspired by the Alien series of movies; Necrons originally were inspired by the Terminator movies; Tau models are inspired by anime, especially things like Gundam; all the fantasy races have analogues in prior works. Frankly, everything that GW has ever done is derivative of things that already existed.

Personally, I don't have a problem with GW's work being largely derivative; I just find it amusing that they get angry when someone else does work derivative of GW's work.

Nice thread Manchu, and I think this is deffinately the way to go with this issue. I think this should help clear the air and help members to understand the direction some posters are coming from when it comes to dealing with the CHS issue.

I think for me the problem stems from the early display of goods for sale, and the initial reaction that was made from that. I believe strongly that if CHS had taken heed of the advice that was offered (ok we're not lawyers, but we've seen this sooo many times), that this devisive mess could have been avoided. A lot of detractors have been further motivated by the 'holier than thou' attitude that seems to prevail, and by that alone simple arguments have exploded due to a lack of movement and understanding in either side.

Stay with me. The moral dilemma is this. 'Do I feel it's ethicly right to produce this produce?', and this is an individual thing. Nobody can know how each individual answer is arrived at, but to me I can't understand the need to produce stuff that is pretty much just lifted from someone elses hard work. That much is undeniable, however legal or not it turns out. My real worry is not for GW (Ha! I expect that is not going to be understood by some of my detractors) but for much smaller companies that might have a single profitable line that supports all the funky goodness that enriches our miniature hobby. I'm looking hard in the direction of Heresy minis as an easy example, as they produce great stuff but always seem on the verge of implosion.

I worry that exactly that lack of moral value becoming standard in the industry might lead to someone producing similar stuff to their best selling line (hypotheticly) and closing them down. That is not good for the hobby, and what good for the goose is good for the gander and I view the fact that if it is possible to do it to GW which has the ability to defend itself, as opposed to a small company that can't as effectively.

A point for those who are unsure of how I see things. Fantasy is pretty much an open book, Tolkien compiled a load of different stories which are from a variety of cultures and settings. This means beyond creating a means of being original in that setting (GW fairly are) that WH fantasy is fairly open season. 40k is a different matter though. Yes they have taken influence from a wide range of other settings, but they have put their own mark on it and this means that the 40k universe stands alone pretty well, this also means that 40k is GW's to control. If you want sci-fi then come up with your own concept as there is plenty of space...

I apologise for the length, but I have a lot to get off my chest. Other companies that have products available for use in the 40k universe put in the groundwork to produce kits that are what people want, but are still new and exciting. CHS doesn't do this, all I see is a company that takes some artwork and says I will produce that and damn the consequences. I don't see anything in the catalog that is any different, and that is disapointing.

Finally the quality of the sculpting is woefull, and the defence of this is pretty poorly made too. I make that comment and reference people to what Maxmini, Kromlek and several other companies sell. Considering the current state of sculpting tech and knowledge there is no excuse for bent or soft detail in a product that is to be sold. For a personal work it matters not, but charging money makes it an entirely different proposition.

I know there are a number of people who don't like my opinions and I know that I do get a bit too hot, but I believe what I believe and my moral compass points me in the direction it does. I can't understand why there is so much fuss about a 3rd division manufacturer. The Scorpion is the first fairly descent sculpt, but they are already in production elsewhere. Sums it up for me really, for me.

I've belabored the point already and have therefore redacted this post.

weeble1000 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:And I'd like to point out this entire thread is your opinion.

Great, now we're starting to find some common ground. Why don't we try to provide some objective framework to our discussion. It's only my opinion, as you've pointed out, but I think that objective framework could be the harm, if any, caused by Chapterhouse's actions; speculation about the potential effects of Chapterhouse's business on something; or even just a straight yes or no vote on the "morality" of Chapterhouse's business so we can determine which side wins by virtue of a simple majority. What do you think? Or maybe we should discount everything everyone says as based purely on opinion and talk about how nothing is ultimately knowable because every person lives in a unique universe of its own perceptions.

No, I'm saying that this entire thread is for discussing opinions based upon perceived legality(not actual legality, but the perception of law and how it should apply) and morality.

I, as I have said, do not like Chapterhouse because they're producing what I feel to be low quality models based off a damned fine setting which deserves far better treatment and I've been seeing more and more of their products on the tabletop whenever I go to the FLGS for paints or glue.

And it's not like when I've asked the people they got it because they like it. It's because there's a perceived notion of 'cheapness' with that stuff rather than the bits packs GW has available.

You can make the argument that licensed copying is moral, because the creator allowed the copying. The idea shifts from "only the creator should use that idea" to "only the creator can control the idea."

At that point though you're introducing complications to a simple rule (dont' copy other people's work). It's not a big one, (only copy other people's work with permission), but that's not the real problem with seperating the morality from the legal aspect.

The real problem is that creators copy all the time. Non-stop. The phrase "there is nothing new under the sun" was coined 2500 years ago. There are movies today with plots blantanly cribbed from ancient greek plays.

The Lion King, arguably one of the best movies of it's time, is incredibly derivitive of an anime. Nobody seems to care very much there.

So, this is about making a judgment call as to when something is "too far." I'd be interested to see a moral argument, from the ground up, as to why this, and only this, is immoral.

Saldiven wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that you "morally" have a right to create models directly based upon someone else's ideas, and profit off that.

That's funny because that's exactly how Citadel miniatures got started. They made miniatures for other people's games, D&D in particular. So let's not pretend that GW has any moral ascendancy here.

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Almost. Citadel didn't obtain a license with TSR until 1984. By that time, Citadel had been creating and selling fantasy based miniatures for five years. At the time of Citadel's opening for business in 1979, there really was no other market for fantasy miniatures other than people playing games such as those created by TSR. Citadel didn't have any gaming system of their own at the time, and were merely piggybacking off of demand created by other companies. I actually remember this stuff, as I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in the summer of 1978, before Citadel miniatures were even available. In fact, back in the early 1980's, you had to get Citadel miniatures through Ral Partha, since Citadel didn't manufacture or distribute their own minis in the USA.

Before my time. I'm going off what I've been told over the years by veterans.

But by that same logic, it's likely they were in the same place as Avatar of War is. D&D was based largely off generally available mythos, Tolkien stuff, et al when it first started, wasn't it?

Just like GW is largely taken from existing ideas: Space Marines had existed for almost 50 years in 1983; Chaos was something written largely about by Moorcock for 10+ years in 1983; Tyranids, genestealers in particular, are inspired by the Alien series of movies; Necrons originally were inspired by the Terminator movies; Tau models are inspired by anime, especially things like Gundam; all the fantasy races have analogues in prior works. Frankly, everything that GW has ever done is derivative of things that already existed.

Personally, I don't have a problem with GW's work being largely derivative; I just find it amusing that they get angry when someone else does work derivative of GW's work.

But there's the clutch. Chapterhouse isn't derivative. It's a copy.

Kanluwen wrote:But there's the clutch. Chapterhouse isn't derivative. It's a copy.

Not by any definition of the word used in any sort of precise manner.

I really have no idea what american law dictates as manufacturing infringement, and I honestly think that unless you have a law degree you shouldnt be posting on this thread.

Grimtuff wrote:

Grimstonefire wrote:
Look at any of the Avatars of War models and tell me theirs aren't closer to GW IP than this is.

Strawman.

Even though AOW models look like their GW counterparts GW cannot really lay claim to the concepts of Dwarfs, Orcs, Elves, Goblins etc. whereas they quite clearly can with Space Marines for example.

Um, did you seriously just assert that GW can claim the concept of Space Marines? If, by that you mean a line of profoundly poorly proportioned armored troopers, you might have something.

One of the reasons GW so aggressively protects its "IP" is precisely because their protection is so very thin.

Now, if one wants to ask the question, what will happen if CHS wins, and GW loses? In my own opinion, only good things for the consumers.

First, let's be realistic here, even if GW loses on all points, the impact on their bottom line will be negligible (their stock, on the other hand, will likely be impacted). GW is a leader not necessarily because they are able to keep people from competing in their (incredibly generic) area, but because they manufacture the largest range of plastic miniature kits for table top gaming and have the largest "installed fan base" as one might say.

Now, if CHS wins, we might very well see ventures in the Sci-Fi field akin to Mantic's actions in Fantasy. So, how can GW protect themselves from these putative Sci-Fi Mantics? The same way they protect themselves from Mantic in Fantasy;

Quality

In the next few years GW is looking at getting a metric buttload of cash from the LotR and Hobbit license. Just as the original trilogy fueled GW's shift to plastics, so this can help them find their way in a world where they face more competitors in terms of models. Make no mistake, no matter what, those competitors are coming, new technology makes it inevitable.

But if GW plays to their actual strengths and is able to put out a quality product that people want to buy, it really won't matter if there are garage outfits like CHS out there. Putting Quality and the Consumer first is a winning strategy for GW; they have the infrastructure for plastic kits and a world wide distribution network, and the ability to undercut any of their competitors.

Kanluwen wrote:No, I'm saying that this entire thread is for discussing opinions based upon perceived legality(not actual legality, but the perception of law and how it should apply) and morality.

I, as I have said, do not like Chapterhouse because they're producing what I feel to be low quality models based off a damned fine setting which deserves far better treatment and I've been seeing more and more of their products on the tabletop whenever I go to the FLGS for paints or glue.

And it's not like when I've asked the people they got it because they like it. It's because there's a perceived notion of 'cheapness' with that stuff rather than the bits packs GW has available.

Is that what this thread is about or is that what you want to make it be about? Okay, I'm game. I disagree with you. I don't think the model is a copy. I think Chapterhouse's business is perfectly moral. Where do we go from here? That's the point you have consistently managed to miss. Because people are going to have wildly different views about this with no meaningful way to discuss it, the thread might as well be a poll. And if you take a poll, you might as well make it interesting and determine a winner, either arbitrarily or by some objective criteria, such as a simple majority. But then you wouldn't be able to post over and over and over again saying the same thing. It's a copy. It's a copy. No, It's a copy. You're wrong, I'm right and it's a copy. What is the use of that other than jacking up your post count?

Polonius is being more calm about this, so I'm just going to check out at this point.

Alleging that it's a copy simply short circuits debate. Everybody agrees that copying (in the technical sense) is wrong.

Everybody also agrees that borrowing ideas and using them in your own work is ok.

When the debate is about something in the middle, shouting "it's a copy" shows a lack of nuance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This debate isn't about the morality of CHS's action. Or, it isn't about whether this sculpt somehow violates some sacred boundary.

It's about people's feelings for CHS shifting more and more negative, based on a complex combination of factors. Respect for Jes Goodwin, notions of fair play, a personal dislike for CHS's persona, the percieved arrogances, what have you.

In the law, there are so called "brightline rules," and there are "balancing tests." A brightline rule a yardstick: if X has Y, than Z. A balancing test looks at many factors, and balances them out.

This situation is a classic example of a balance test being sold as a brightline rule. People are talking that "this went too far," when what they mean is closer to "this is the point in which I stopped respecting them." And many posters have been more clear, and I have read too many of them as the former.

I think that the point is, for a lot of grey area moral stuff (and this most certainly is one, despite what many people want to argue), personal feelings kick in. When a person you hate does something shady, it's despicable. When you're buddy does it, you're sure he had a good reason.

If nothing else, I'd bet all the money in my wallet that if the Doomseer were amazingly cool, very few people would be outraged.

Captain Jack wrote: Wrote lots of good stuff but then came...

Finally the quality of the sculpting is woefull, and the defence of this is pretty poorly made too. I make that comment and reference people to what Maxmini, Kromlek and several other companies sell. Considering the current state of sculpting tech and knowledge there is no excuse for bent or soft detail in a product that is to be sold. For a personal work it matters not, but charging money makes it an entirely different proposition.

I know there are a number of people who don't like my opinions and I know that I do get a bit too hot, but I believe what I believe and my moral compass points me in the direction it does. I can't understand why there is so much fuss about a 3rd division manufacturer. The Scorpion is the first fairly descent sculpt, but they are already in production elsewhere. Sums it up for me really, for me.

Your last two paragraphs no longer takes product A and compares it to product B, but turns it into an attack on product A ignoring all the other producers C, D and E. You can't understand why there is so much fuss, I agree, so why perpetuate it?

If someone is prepared to pay the cash, thats their lookout not yours, I can understand you feel for them, but it's their decision, let them deal with it.

Cheers

Andrew

I suppose you are right for the most part in your last statement Pol, however I get that 'nagging doubt' every time that I see something that is produced by CHS. How can there be such a lack of the original? Pointing at other small 'hangers on' you can see that they have put their own stamp on their version of 40k, whereas from my perspecive CHS have been involved in plagerism. If you can't produce a truely unique piece then what hope is there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AndrewC wrote:Your last two paragraphs no longer takes product A and compares it to product B, but turns it into an attack on product A ignoring all the other producers C, D and E. You can't understand why there is so much fuss, I agree, so why perpetuate it?

If someone is prepared to pay the cash, thats their lookout not yours, I can understand you feel for them, but it's their decision, let them deal with it.

Cheers

Andrew

Because this is the topic the thread is talking about. Bit hard not to talk about the topic. I agree it an individuals decision where to spend their money, this is indeed a discussion about that very thing. The question that I am asking for an answer to is 'why is there so much fuss' becasue one manufacturer is able to be original and another is very much less so. No attack there, just a statement of my views.

First, Tolkien created few if any visual representations of his work -- certainly none that GW "borrowed" as most were landscapes anyhow. Those that were created for the movies are under license to Citadel. As has been pointed out time and again, fantasy concepts are much more widely shared than the scifi ones. GW took the fantasy tropes and put unique twists on them. To the extent that GW found inspiration in other sources (Lucas, Heinlein) it was never a wholesale copy.

CHS has created a Farseer model.

They were not inspired by the idea of Farseers or their visual representations.

They just made their own model of a Farseer.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:If nothing else, I'd bet all the money in my wallet that if the Doomseer were amazingly cool, very few people would be outraged.

And I'd bet that if you problematized what might make the Doomseer cool as a third-party model as much as you've problematized why some people are not okay with the Doomseer, you'd understand that "outrage" much more clearly.

Manchu wrote:They were not inspired by the idea of Farseers or their visual representations.

They just made their own model of a Farseer.

I think where we disagree is the value of the bolded words. It might be a farseer, but it's still their own farseer.

How do you feel about Starcraft space marines, which are clearly highly derived from GW ones?

Almost. Citadel didn't obtain a license with TSR until 1984. By that time, Citadel had been creating and selling fantasy based miniatures for five years. At the time of Citadel's opening for business in 1979, there really was no other market for fantasy miniatures other than people playing games such as those created by TSR. Citadel didn't have any gaming system of their own at the time, and were merely piggybacking off of demand created by other companies (Warhammer Fantasy Battle debuted in 1983). I actually remember this stuff, as I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in the summer of 1978, before Citadel miniatures were even available. In fact, back in the early 1980's, you had to get Citadel miniatures through Ral Partha, since Citadel didn't manufacture or distribute their own minis in the USA.

This!
GW didnt aquire licenses for "eldar" or woodelfs or highelves or chaos stars etc in the beginning when they were selling these things.

Kanluwen wrote:
But there's the clutch. Chapterhouse isn't derivative. It's a copy

Now that is just your personal opinion.

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:If nothing else, I'd bet all the money in my wallet that if the Doomseer were amazingly cool, very few people would be outraged.

And I'd bet that if you problematized what might make the Doomseer cool as a third-party model as much as you've problematized why some people are not okay with the Doomseer, you'd understand that "outrage" much more clearly.

I'm not entirely certain what you mean. I'm not doubting the outrage, or even it's validity. I think I do understand the outrage, in fact I think I understand it better than the people that are outraged.

Which is what my wager points out.

Why is the world Moral being used in this thread? This has about less than nothing to do with morals.
Lets use a metaphor;
If a farmer owns land, yet on one acre the farmer isn't currently using, another farmer comes along and plants and harvests for money, without permission. That is illegal. If isn't your property to use, don't.
Chapter House made a dumb mistake in taking GW's names.
Simply naming them Space Elves would have worked. But Eldar is not a name they have the rights to use.

Polonius wrote:How do you feel about Starcraft space marines, which are clearly highly derived from GW ones?

As a wargamer, I find them to be visually and thematically (i.e., in terms of background) distinct -- just as, as a wargamer, I can see there is no such distinction at all between the Doomseer and the Farseer. I understand the factual relationship between them (Blizzard wanted to make 40k-craft) and this is actually a great example: Bilzzard didn't just use a wholesale copy of the Farseer idea when they dreamed up the extremely distinct Protoss High Templar.

Captain Jack wrote:
Because this is the topic the thread is talking about. Bit hard not to talk about the topic. I agree it an individuals decision where to spend their money, this is indeed a discussion about that very thing. The question that I am asking for an answer to is 'why is there so much fuss' becasue one manufacturer is able to be original and another is very much less so. No attack there, just a statement of my views.

I understand now. However the subject is about;

Is it legal to actually sell it? IF it is, should they actually sell it? And if they do, should you as a purchaser actually buy it?

Value for money and quality of sculpts wasn't part of it, and you have valid opinions with examples and comparisions, but slightly OT.

With regard to originality, I would suggest the CHS does more to support GW than some of the other manufacturers simply because of that "less so". It all meshes together, whereas some of the more original sculpts require the purchase almost exclusively from them in order for your army to look coherent, which pulls even more money from the source, GW.

Cheers

Andrew

Pyriel- wrote:

Almost. Citadel didn't obtain a license with TSR until 1984. By that time, Citadel had been creating and selling fantasy based miniatures for five years. At the time of Citadel's opening for business in 1979, there really was no other market for fantasy miniatures other than people playing games such as those created by TSR. Citadel didn't have any gaming system of their own at the time, and were merely piggybacking off of demand created by other companies (Warhammer Fantasy Battle debuted in 1983). I actually remember this stuff, as I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in the summer of 1978, before Citadel miniatures were even available. In fact, back in the early 1980's, you had to get Citadel miniatures through Ral Partha, since Citadel didn't manufacture or distribute their own minis in the USA.

This!
GW didnt aquire licenses for "eldar" or woodelfs or highelves or chaos stars etc in the beginning when they were selling these things.

Kanluwen wrote:
But there's the clutch. Chapterhouse isn't derivative. It's a copy

Now that is just your personal opinion.

This is true, but what you fail to take into account is that 'fantasy' miniature wargaming was in its infancy and the situation then is completely different to what there is now with extablished 'brands' of sci fi. 40k is one of these 'brands' along with star trek/wars and has been developed to the point that it is a distinct property. It is not a good argument to compare the fomative state of the entire industry to today. Why is there this desperate need to justify the creation of very very similar minis, in someone elses style, when there is plenty of space for new and original ideas?

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:How do you feel about Starcraft space marines, which are clearly highly derived from GW ones?

As a wargamer, I find them to be visually and thematically (i.e., in terms of background) distinct -- just as, as a wargamer, I can see there is no such distinction at all between the Doomseer and the Farseer. I understand the factual relationship between them (Blizzard wanted to make 40k-craft) and this is actually a great example: Bilzzard didn't just use a wholesale copy of the Farseer idea when they dreamed up the extremely distinct Protoss High Templar.

Which would be great if I were talking about the protoss. When you look at the visuals for a starcraft marine, they are about as similar to the tabletop models as game engines at the time could replicate. You can start nit-picking (the helmet is bubbled), but then you can do the same about the doomseer. Look at the shoulderpads (the most iconic aspect of a GW space marine) on a Starcraft marine. That's a pretty straight up copy.

When you compare the two marines, and you compare the two seers, what you start to notice is that both have many striking similarities, and both have pretty strong distinctions. The biggest difference isn't the amount of borrowing, but the result: one is from one of the best games ever made, and the other is a crappy scuplt that will be forgotten in a year.

Which is my point: this isn't about th morality of borrowing ideas.

People aren't outraged about borrowing of ideas whent he result is gainful. Starcraft is hella fun. When there is no upside, then people tend to notice the pilfering.

Mewiththeface wrote:Why is the world Moral being used in this thread? This has about less than nothing to do with morals.
Lets use a metaphor;
If a farmer owns land, yet on one acre the farmer isn't currently using, another farmer comes along and plants and harvests for money, without permission. That is illegal. If isn't your property to use, don't.
Chapter House made a dumb mistake in taking GW's names.
Simply naming them Space Elves would have worked. But Eldar is not a name they have the rights to use.

If I could change your metaphor to; farmer 1 plants a crop of cabbages, farmer 2 sees the cabbages, thinks that a good idea and grows his own cabbages in the next field, is that illegal?

CHS hasn't 'planted' in the field, merely {hah, that may be the worst understatement I've used} taken inspiration from whats there.
Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:I understand now. However the subject is about;

Is it legal to actually sell it? IF it is, should they actually sell it? And if they do, should you as a purchaser actually buy it?

Value for money and quality of sculpts wasn't part of it, and you have valid opinions with examples and comparisions, but slightly OT.

With regard to originality, I would suggest the CHS does more to support GW than some of the other manufacturers simply because of that "less so". It all meshes together, whereas some of the more original sculpts require the purchase almost exclusively from them in order for your army to look coherent, which pulls even more money from the source, GW.

Cheers

Andrew

My apologies for the wonder, but it is there to back up my opinion. What you are talking about is competition, which is good for GW. Good sci fi minis produced by alternative companies force GW to keep improving their game, whereas I see CHS as the opposite where they are just trying to use GW's imagery to make some moolan. That's not competition, its something much less fun.

Stormtroopers inspired Space Marines? Which is why Space Marines carry a baby rocket launcher, which they can hit almost every time with, in their impervious brightly multi-coloured armour, and are almost proto-gods, led by demi-gods, all of them genetically adapted for war.

As opposed to regular (albeit occasionally identical) guys in plastic armour waving a flashlight..wait..I know that description....

Captain Jack wrote:

AndrewC wrote:I understand now. However the subject is about;

Is it legal to actually sell it? IF it is, should they actually sell it? And if they do, should you as a purchaser actually buy it?

Value for money and quality of sculpts wasn't part of it, and you have valid opinions with examples and comparisions, but slightly OT.

With regard to originality, I would suggest the CHS does more to support GW than some of the other manufacturers simply because of that "less so". It all meshes together, whereas some of the more original sculpts require the purchase almost exclusively from them in order for your army to look coherent, which pulls even more money from the source, GW.

Cheers

Andrew

My apologies for the wonder, but it is there to back up my opinion. What you are talking about is competition, which is good for GW. Good sci fi minis produced by alternative companies force GW to keep improving their game, whereas I see CHS as the opposite where they are just trying to use GW's imagery to make some moolan. That's not competition, its something much less fun.

I've seen this sentiment several times now, and I have to ask: if you think CHS produces inferior products that don't add anything to what GW is already offering, why bother complaining? I mean, that sounds like a recipe for a business failure to me.

If you think that CHS if trading on GW's name, well, that's precisely what the lawsuit is aimed to sort out.

If CHS is just using GW's imagery, how can they be making money of it if what they offer is simply inferior to what GW offers?

While nobody can be sure, I would wager a guess that concept of Games Workshop's "Space Marines" was born from Starship Troopers----published in 1959.


Space Marines in the 1959 novel;

Work exo-suit armor that increased their strength based off internal sensors (pressure driven) and made them void safe.
Used larger weapons that their suit enabled them to use.
Their exo suit included radar, infrared viewing, amplified hearing, etc
Launched "surgical strikes" from orbiting ships via drop 'capsules'
Wore rocket powered backpacks so they could fly



Finding an original idea is tough. Even the above was ripped off from another novel in the 30s.

Manchu wrote:@Vaktathi: Tha's exactly how I felt pre-Doomseer. To me, the Doomseer is the sculptural equivalent of saying "We make Citadel miniatures." (Again, this isn't meant to be a legal argument to convince people who know nothing about 40k.)

This.

And to echo Kanluwen's point, The War... (figure in question?) is an exact copy of the GW work at a much lower quality. They didn't even make it a point to change anything, add to the work, or improve on it. All it says to me in this piece is that they are rubbing this issue of IP stuff in people face and calling it new.

I for one would be much more of a mind to look harder at thier products had they NOT just took something like an unneeded Eldar figure, and pretty much verboten copy it out and even give it bewbs. Really? was that thing even called for? There arn't enough of those? What about FEMALE heads, or FEMALE IG troopers? For months, we've been SCREAMING for some decent looking IG looking female parts that would fit in well and in proportion with the already established issue of not having female IG troopers.

I honestly see it as throwing down a glove and calling someone out. The figure to me really wasn't even called for, when class would have told you to chop it up into parts, show them on the sprue unpainted and mention offhandedly that they were off market parts.

What, just because you put a good paint job on it it is ok? It's not. The figures blatent use and rather pedestrian sculpt pose isn't lost, either.

This is true, but what you fail to take into account is that 'fantasy' miniature wargaming was in its infancy and the situation then is completely different to what there is now with extablished 'brands' of sci fi. 40k is one of these 'brands' along with star trek/wars and has been developed to the point that it is a distinct property. It is not a good argument to compare the fomative state of the entire industry to today. Why is there this desperate need to justify the creation of very very similar minis, in someone elses style, when there is plenty of space for new and original ideas?

Because today a lot more money is at stake so all actors tread carefully, you dont see GW outright violating the IP of startrek today since the sums involved in a court case are astronomic.
The funny thing is CHS actually boosts GW sales so the whole comparison to yesterday vs today is not so true anymore.

Stormtroopers inspired Space Marines? Which is why Space Marines carry a baby rocket launcher, which they can hit almost every time with, in their impervious brightly multi-coloured armour, and are almost proto-gods, led by demi-gods, all of them genetically adapted for war.

Being led by *tadaa* Horus himself!
You know the foremost of demi gods etc etc, the guy whos symbol, the eye of Horus, GW claim to have ownership of as it is one of their Eldar devices, you know "eldar" who were not invented by GW in the first place. The whole mess is just one gigantic "lol".




This next one is a bit of topic but quite interesting nevertheless so, it is aimed mostly at Polonius and his knowledge.

Outrage and outrage, people being pissed of, how important is it and how much does it affect really?
It is so that outrage is completely irrelevant when you think about it. It simply doesnt matter nor does it affect sales and no I´m not speaking about CHS here (hence the of topic) and some persons outrage regarding it but about a chinese based re-cast company that buys in minis from over a dozen miniature companies (GW and FW included) and recasts them and puts the cheaper knockofs out of ebay and their own website.

I googled a bit about these guys and mini gaming forums all over that know about him are foaming and raging, the word "outrage" just got a whole new meaning as people absolutely hate and detest this guy and his grand scale re-cast business. I cant even start to count all the emails about legal action be taken that are sent by forum members of to these various miniature companies that are being systematically plagiarized (we are talking straight on recasting, flawed at that based on the pictures of "their" products on the website).
Another thing that is absolutely driving people crazy is that he doesnt even reply to emails (no wonder with all the hate he is getting).

So I emailed the owner out of curiosity, to stand a chance of getting a reply I gave him much praise over his, "recasts". To my surprise he actually answered the next day (mine must have been the only non hate email he ever got lol) and we had a short discussion about what he is doing and why and how the feedback affects him. I didnt judge him, voice my opinion or say anything negative, I just asked and he talked.
They guy is laughing all the way to the bank, the more "outrage" the more people see him and the more sales he makes and nothing can touch him since he hides in china and his business is growing steadily.

I´m baffled really, dont know what to say when there are businesses out there making a big buck on direct illegal actions and the more bad attention and outrage they get the more they sell.


To the real lawyers in this thread:
Is there any chance or legal means to stop such a ventrue based in china by western companies? I bet GW and many others are not happy about this guy so what is going to stop him from in time, selling recasts of pretty much the whole FW range and all other companies products as well?

I must have missed the Tolkien book where the Valar and the other Elves went into space.

AgeOfEgos wrote:While nobody can be sure, I would wager a guess that concept of Games Workshop's "Space Marines" was born from Starship Troopers----published in 1959.


Space Marines in the 1959 novel;

Work exo-suit armor that increased their strength based off internal sensors (pressure driven) and made them void safe.
Used larger weapons that their suit enabled them to use.
Their exo suit included radar, infrared viewing, amplified hearing, etc
Launched "surgical strikes" from orbiting ships via drop 'capsules'
Wore rocket powered backpacks so they could fly



Finding an original idea is tough. Even the above was ripped off from another novel in the 30s.

Blokes in powered armour is no longer a massively original concept. Its a natural extension from "blokes in armour" really, and thus inevitable. It would see that the difference is the back-story to those blokes, and the appearance of that armour. If memory serves, Heinlein Power Armour is large, perhaps Terminator plus in size, and I assume quite "modern" in appearance (for the period.). The back-story and setting shares more with a Vietnam novel, perhaps WW2. The suit provides "the boost". Space Marines are genetically adapted, with a more medieval imagery (constantly evolving, its true.) and a more mystical, ritualized Medieval ethos in their background and imagery. I could go on, but you get the picture. Point being the two are quite different, other than the fact they both have powered armour (and some functions are universal really.) As far as I know, StormTrooper armour doesn't even stop incoming fire, much less assist the wearer with anything. I'm not overly familiar with StarCraft ones, so I couldn't tell you where they differ.

Its a little like the fact that "Tanks" aren't an original idea. Energy weapons, spaceships... all old tropes. Its the spin that makes them fresh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:I must have missed the Tolkien book where the Valar and the other Elves went into space.

Might be in the three prequel books he did to cash in on the original trilogy

No, I've read those. I don't remember any spaceships.

Captain Jack wrote:Why is there this desperate need to justify the creation of very very similar minis, in someone elses style, when there is plenty of space for new and original ideas?

That's a really good question.

Some people have said in response to my disapproval of the Doomseer words to the effect of "you wouldn't complain if you liked it" -- I wonder if they've considered that they might be talking more about their own standards: i.e., they're not complaining because they like it.

Manchu wrote:

Captain Jack wrote:Why is there this desperate need to justify the creation of very very similar minis, in someone elses style, when there is plenty of space for new and original ideas?

That's a really good question.

Some people have said in response to my disapproval of the Doomseer words to the effect of "you wouldn't complain if you liked it" -- I wonder if they've considered that they might be talking more about their own standards: i.e., they're not complaining because they like it.

I quite like that scorpion woman cast. Doesn't mean I can't see it for what it is.

I'd argue that one of the big reasons you like it is because you can see it for what it is.

I mean, there are hundred (thousands?) of Reaper minis that are really, really well sculpted. Some of them are better than anything CHS has produced or probably ever will produce. But none of them get this kind of attention.

Why? Again, it's not because people have a particular and yet inexplicable hatred of CHS. At least, I don't. I really don't think Kanluwen or many others do, either.

The reason is because totally ripping off Farseers and Striking Scorpions was a conscious business decision of CHS.

Polonius wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:But there's the clutch. Chapterhouse isn't derivative. It's a copy.

Not by any definition of the word used in any sort of precise manner.

It "was before his time" and he's "just going off of what a veteran told him".

Not his fault.

Reading some of the snarky, holier than thou, crap coming from the anti-chapterhouse crowd here makes me want to purchase something, anything from chapterhouse.

Hey after this thread finally dies off, start another thread next week so you can teach us all again, for the eleventh time, how CHS is ripping off poor old GW.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
stuff

Yes, GW built upon the Starship model.
Yes, they added alterations as they saw fit.
Yes, the amount of alteration needed to claim unique IP is subjective.
Yes, that subjectivity varies from person to person.
No, it really doesn't matter on how our subjectivity varies.

And yes how serious we take our toy soldiers makes me laugh.

Haha.... im rather confused by the "no similarity between DoomSeer and FarSeer."

The DoomSeer looks like FarSeer that didnt wear bone armor yet , but is still in their full protective suit.
Not to mention the antlers head.
Not to mention the GW style tabard ( hmm where did i see that exact sculpt from cant remember atm )

And lets not forget about the most basic thing about it....

Its supposed to be similar enough to be used as an Eldar Miniature Farseer ( hence the purpose of its creation and existence ) <-- Correct me if im wrong?
Yet just different enough to not get into legal issues with GW. HELLO? THATS WHAT ITS MADE FOR

Starcraft copied Warhammer? dont make me laugh , they both copied Starship Troopers , wow the audacity of the supporters.

"other companies have been doing the samething by parodying things" I thought most of us are raised to believe two wrong doesnt make a right?

Lastly , i do support CH and its existence for my personal reasons , BUT im still not going to say its morally right just because i support it.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
stuff

Yes, GW built upon the Starship model.
Yes, they added alterations as they saw fit.
Yes, the amount of alteration needed to claim unique IP is subjective.
Yes, that subjectivity varies from person to person.
No, it really doesn't matter on how our subjectivity varies.

And yes how serious we take our toy soldiers makes me laugh.

I was under the impression that Space Marines shared more in common with Frank Herberts Saurdakar than Heinleins Troopers. The misleading difference is the powered armour.

Grimstonefire wrote:Can someone explain to me how these two are similar? Looks to me like *something* in armour that happens to have a vaguely similar helmet to something from the eldar range, but definitely not any of the models below.
It's why I think there is a moral argument to be made for allowing people to sculpt something that is say 80% remotely close and 20% vaguely similar.

Thats what also confuses me , did you pick those specific warlock and farseer because they dont look similar?

Try this isntead?

Sure they dont have rune decors , sure they dont have the bone armor decors , sure they are missing the fancy power coils or w/e they are called.

But you must be doing it on purpose if you think the general aesthetic and design arnt meant to be the same?

People claimed they can draw similarities between Protoss and Eldar just for the long head , then why suddenly cant see this?

I realized this is a warhammer board so we should all "hate" Blizzard when it comes to who copied who , but seriously guys...

I'm not going to comment on the quality of CH's sculpts, because that's not what the problem is here. The issue is that their newer models are done in the exact same way GW models are.

The scorpion exarch has weapons that are identical to how GW weapons look. Check out the pistols, they're exactly how the 2nd edition eldar pistols look. Her armor is nearly identical in detail to the GW ones, her equipment is the same, down to the mandiblasters. Everything about it is obviously a direct rip off of GW. That's where the problem is.

The Doomseer is at least a unique enough model to probably be safe, the helmet is obviously supposed to be eldar, but at least the way the horns and robe are, it appears that the sculptor was a bit more creative, rather than just ripping off the style of robes and armor of a normal eldar farseer.

LunaHound wrote:Haha.... im rather confused by the "no similarity between DoomSeer and FarSeer."

The DoomSeer looks like FarSeer that didnt wear bone armor yet , but is still in their full protective suit.
Not to mention the antlers head.
Not to mention the GW style tabard ( hmm where did i see that exact sculpt from cant remember atm )

And lets not forget about the most basic thing about it....

Its supposed to be similar enough to be used as an Eldar Miniature Farseer ( hence the purpose of its creation and existence ) <-- Correct me if im wrong?
Yet just different enough to not get into legal issues with GW. HELLO? THATS WHAT ITS MADE FOR

Starcraft copied Warhammer? dont make me laugh , they both copied Starship Troopers , wow the audacity of the supporters.

"other companies have been doing the samething by parodying things" I thought most of us are raised to believe two wrong doesnt make a right?

Lastly , i do support CH and its existence for my personal reasons , BUT im still not going to say its morally right just because i support it.

This is a terrific post that really sums up the simplicity of the (non-legal) situation and diffuses a lot of what Captain Jack pointed out are rationalizations. Points for clarity, LunaHound!

minionboy wrote:I'm not going to comment on the quality of CH's sculpts, because that's not what the problem is here. The issue is that their newer models are done in the exact same way GW models are.

The scorpion exarch has weapons that are identical to how GW weapons look. Check out the pistols, they're exactly how the 2nd edition eldar pistols look. Her armor is nearly identical in detail to the GW ones, her equipment is the same, down to the mandiblasters. Everything about it is obviously a direct rip off of GW. That's where the problem is.

The Doomseer is at least a unique enough model to probably be safe, the helmet is obviously supposed to be eldar, but at least the way the horns and robe are, it appears that the sculptor was a bit more creative, rather than just ripping off the style of robes and armor of a normal eldar farseer.

Quite. As pretty as it is, it would be quite easy* to kitbash that figure from other GW Scorpion parts, a razor-saw, pinvice and pins and some greenstuff boobs.

*Relative to modelling skill, obviously.

Kanluwen wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Really?
Moorcock and Tolkien would tend to disagree. If we stretch it a bit Lucas and Heinlein wouldn´t be amused either. None of them got a licence.

I'm sorry, what?
You really need to learn what you're talking about.
Citadel DID produce model ranges for those properties(or at least the RPGs associated with them), under license.

Now of course, you're not trying to talk about that though. You're trying the typical "Well if GW used X as inspiration when building their ideas, then Chapterhouse can use those ideas when creating their models!". Which is just a big huge strawman.

It isn't a strawman.

The heck it isn't. Saying that GW's setting, which may be influenced by properties is the same as a flat copy is a complete and utter strawman.

If GW copied their ideas from Source X, then CH can legitimately copy the same ideas from the same source.
If copying is wrong, both are equally guilty.

Then show me proof of a direct copy, within the current range of GW models and background, and I'll be glad to call GW guilty.

If GW got a licence, for Gandalf, say, they copied with legal permission. Some might say it was still unoriginal and thus immoral.

Except now you're splitting hairs.

Working under license isn't "copying with legal permission", it's paying for the rights to produce a product based off a property.

Here is Gandalf drawn in 1977 for Ralph Bakshi's The Lord Of The Rings.

Are the newer versions by GW different and original conceptions, or are they copies?

If they made their own models and people use them thats five enough. Doing the odd model every so often is fine. Coperate selling is where they cross the line. I think they should stop and have a hefty fine. Base making is fine making bits for that scale but saying they are something GW owns the rights too. IE the Mycetic spore.

Its pretty hard to make a Gandalf that doesn't constitute "Beard, Pointy Hat, Robes, Staff, Sword" whether you've seen Bakshi's or not. Variously GW have been licensed to make Gandalfs (is it even proper to pluralize that? Ah, why not, Tolkein used to make up plurals as well. He wouldn't care.)

Personally I don't get the morality / ethical discussion at all. Was it immoral or unethical for Gary Gygax to take orcs from Tolkien and use them in AD&D? Was it immoral for GW to create models of orcs for use with AD&D? Was it immoral for GW to base Cadians and Tyranids off of ideas from the Aliens movie? Was it immoral for GW to use the word space marines when someone else had coined the term decades before? I don't think any of that is immoral in any way. There is nothing wrong with taking an idea and running with it.

brettz123 wrote:Personally I don't get the morality / ethical discussion at all. Was it immoral or unethical for Gary Gygax to take orcs from Tolkien and use them in AD&D? Was it immoral for GW to create models of orcs for use with AD&D? Was it immoral for GW to base Cadians and Tyranids off of ideas from the Aliens movie? Was it immoral for GW to use the word space marines when someone else had coined the term decades before? I don't think any of that is immoral in any way. There is nothing wrong with taking an idea and running with it.

But GW took the idea and made something out of it , in their own line aka Warhammer Fantasy and 40K

samethings cant be said with the other points you mentioned. As well as many anti CH posts shared the same reason.

I love GW's licensed Gandalf models. Here's one labelled as 'grey wizard' for some strange reason.

LunaHound wrote:

brettz123 wrote:Personally I don't get the morality / ethical discussion at all. Was it immoral or unethical for Gary Gygax to take orcs from Tolkien and use them in AD&D? Was it immoral for GW to create models of orcs for use with AD&D? Was it immoral for GW to base Cadians and Tyranids off of ideas from the Aliens movie? Was it immoral for GW to use the word space marines when someone else had coined the term decades before? I don't think any of that is immoral in any way. There is nothing wrong with taking an idea and running with it.

But GW took the idea and made something out of it , in their own line aka Warhammer Fantasy and 40K

samethings cant be said with the other points you mentioned. As well as many anti CH posts shared the same reason.

They "made something out of it" over the course of 20+ years. All that they "made of it" is still fruit of the original derivative work. That same sort of derivative work is what they're pursuing CHS for.

Well known for his feathery hat and goats skull staff is Gandalf... :p

Kanluwen wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that you "morally" have a right to create models directly based upon someone else's ideas, and profit off that.

That's funny because that's exactly how Citadel miniatures got started. They made miniatures for other people's games, D&D in particular. So let's not pretend that GW has any moral ascendancy here.

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Almost. Citadel didn't obtain a license with TSR until 1984. By that time, Citadel had been creating and selling fantasy based miniatures for five years. At the time of Citadel's opening for business in 1979, there really was no other market for fantasy miniatures other than people playing games such as those created by TSR. Citadel didn't have any gaming system of their own at the time, and were merely piggybacking off of demand created by other companies. I actually remember this stuff, as I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in the summer of 1978, before Citadel miniatures were even available. In fact, back in the early 1980's, you had to get Citadel miniatures through Ral Partha, since Citadel didn't manufacture or distribute their own minis in the USA.

Before my time. I'm going off what I've been told over the years by veterans.

But by that same logic, it's likely they were in the same place as Avatar of War is. D&D was based largely off generally available mythos, Tolkien stuff, et al when it first started, wasn't it?

Just like GW is largely taken from existing ideas: Space Marines had existed for almost 50 years in 1983; Chaos was something written largely about by Moorcock for 10+ years in 1983; Tyranids, genestealers in particular, are inspired by the Alien series of movies; Necrons originally were inspired by the Terminator movies; Tau models are inspired by anime, especially things like Gundam; all the fantasy races have analogues in prior works. Frankly, everything that GW has ever done is derivative of things that already existed.

Personally, I don't have a problem with GW's work being largely derivative; I just find it amusing that they get angry when someone else does work derivative of GW's work.

But there's the clutch. Chapterhouse isn't derivative. It's a copy.

No, it's derivative. You need to check the definitions of "derivative" and "copy." CHS works are inspired by and based upon the GW universe. CHS stuff is no more a copy of GW products than are the custom body kits for a Ford Mustang that you can buy from third party vendors (who don't need a license to sell those body kits, BTW).

Saldiven wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Arschbombe wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
I don't think that you "morally" have a right to create models directly based upon someone else's ideas, and profit off that.

That's funny because that's exactly how Citadel miniatures got started. They made miniatures for other people's games, D&D in particular. So let's not pretend that GW has any moral ascendancy here.

And the difference is Citadel miniatures did it under license.

Almost. Citadel didn't obtain a license with TSR until 1984. By that time, Citadel had been creating and selling fantasy based miniatures for five years. At the time of Citadel's opening for business in 1979, there really was no other market for fantasy miniatures other than people playing games such as those created by TSR. Citadel didn't have any gaming system of their own at the time, and were merely piggybacking off of demand created by other companies. I actually remember this stuff, as I started playing Dungeons & Dragons in the summer of 1978, before Citadel miniatures were even available. In fact, back in the early 1980's, you had to get Citadel miniatures through Ral Partha, since Citadel didn't manufacture or distribute their own minis in the USA.

Before my time. I'm going off what I've been told over the years by veterans.

But by that same logic, it's likely they were in the same place as Avatar of War is. D&D was based largely off generally available mythos, Tolkien stuff, et al when it first started, wasn't it?

Just like GW is largely taken from existing ideas: Space Marines had existed for almost 50 years in 1983; Chaos was something written largely about by Moorcock for 10+ years in 1983; Tyranids, genestealers in particular, are inspired by the Alien series of movies; Necrons originally were inspired by the Terminator movies; Tau models are inspired by anime, especially things like Gundam; all the fantasy races have analogues in prior works. Frankly, everything that GW has ever done is derivative of things that already existed.

Personally, I don't have a problem with GW's work being largely derivative; I just find it amusing that they get angry when someone else does work derivative of GW's work.

But there's the clutch. Chapterhouse isn't derivative. It's a copy.

No, it's derivative. You need to check the definitions of "derivative" and "copy." CHS works are inspired by and based upon the GW universe. CHS stuff is no more a copy of GW products than are the custom body kits for a Ford Mustang that you can buy from third party vendors (who don't need a license to sell those body kits, BTW).

+1!

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Well known for his feathery hat and goats skull staff is Gandalf... :p

Which is an example of how the miniature is derivative, rather than a copy.

Just a point: Tolkien Orcs as described are quite different to the GW variety of orc. (no such thing as a greenskin in Tolkien.) They share a name and a tendency towards evil and brutality, and a bit of stance. Otherwise, the descriptors are further apart than the CH Farseer and a GW one. And from that, Orcs are not a completely original invention of Tolkein either. Such is the nature of most fantasy. If anything, it builds upon itself to create something interesting and new, constructing interesting new twists on established tropes. The Farseer comparison might just survive that, but that scorpion could be made almost completely from GW parts. Its a pair of breasts and a headswap. Pose alone is not enough to remove it from that. (Not to say that it isn't nice, I would stress.)

Manchu wrote:

Captain Jack wrote:Why is there this desperate need to justify the creation of very very similar minis, in someone elses style, when there is plenty of space for new and original ideas?

That's a really good question.

Some people have said in response to my disapproval of the Doomseer words to the effect of "you wouldn't complain if you liked it" -- I wonder if they've considered that they might be talking more about their own standards: i.e., they're not complaining because they like it.

I'd agree with that. I think that in nearly any grey area, people will support an action when it is favorable, and reject an action when it isn't.

LunaHound wrote:Starcraft copied Warhammer? dont make me laugh , they both copied Starship Troopers , wow the audacity of the supporters.

I dont' think it's audacity to point out that there are similar actions that people aren't upset about, in order to show that it's not the copying itself that is the root issue. Blizzard didn't read Starship troopers and design their Marines. They look incredibly similar to a GW space marine. It's relevant because...

"other companies have been doing the samething by parodying things" I thought most of us are raised to believe two wrong doesnt make a right?

It's not a question of how many wrongs make a right, it's a matter of consistency. I've seen few models attract the ire quite like this doomseer. I'm arguing that it's less a matter of how direct a knock off it is, but that many of the people expressing outrage are doing so because they dont' like it, they can't use it, it's not very good, and they're afraid that making it will hurt 3rd party vendors they do like.

Lastly , i do support CH and its existence for my personal reasons , BUT im still not going to say its morally right just because i support it.

that's mighty big of you. I don't think those that find the sculpt immoral are only doing so for personal reasons. I think that people are more willing to make exceptions when they like something, and more willing to be hardline when they don't.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

brettz123 wrote:Personally I don't get the morality / ethical discussion at all. Was it immoral or unethical for Gary Gygax to take orcs from Tolkien and use them in AD&D? Was it immoral for GW to create models of orcs for use with AD&D? Was it immoral for GW to base Cadians and Tyranids off of ideas from the Aliens movie? Was it immoral for GW to use the word space marines when someone else had coined the term decades before? I don't think any of that is immoral in any way. There is nothing wrong with taking an idea and running with it.

Well, there's never really been anything wrong with running with an idea (space elf wizard in armor), and it's always been wrong to steal a complete expression of an idea (duping copies of Eldrad).

Where things get stickier is when you take strong elements from an expression of an idea and recycle them into a new piece. This particular instance looks like somebody looked at every eldar farseer, boiled them down to their elements, and created a new one. No single aspect is completely taken, nothing directly matches, but as Luna pointed out, it was designed to, at the least, fit right in with GW farseers, and succeeds at that.

So, are we going to say that you shouldn't take motifs and themes? Are we saying the rule should be that pieces that look like a different version of something else aren't allowed? If this is immoral, why? What's the rule, and how would we apply it to other things?

It's an interesting discussion. Part of me hopes that there is some moral rubric we can articulate, but most of me thinks that my more cynical view that the morality of these things is rooted more in taste or personal value than any rule.

Personally, I'd like to see GW get hosed on this, regardless of whether or not it's likely...

I'm tired of their bullying IP claims.

Did you know, for example, that if you were to write a story where in the characters even mention 40k, etc (even in the context that one of the characters mentions playing it), GW's IP policy can be read that they now own the entirety of that work and can use it however they see fit, without crediting the author or compensating them.

GW does not likely have a leg to stand on, though, in all likelihood. Granted, they could claim the Eldar minis as 'derivative work', however, CH could pursue the angle that GW's product itself is derivative of another work (say, oh, Moorcock's Elric which GW formerly had and then lost the rights to, only to recycle many of them as the Fantasy High Elves.)

Hmm, that "grey wizard" *cough* Gandalf *cough*, made me instantly think of "radagast" instead.

I must have missed the Tolkien book where the Valar and the other Elves went into space.

Nice strawman. Ask your "veteran" for better one liners.
Oh and its not "other elves" but "other Eldar" (omg, GW stealing names from other sources)

LunaHound wrote:

brettz123 wrote:Personally I don't get the morality / ethical discussion at all. Was it immoral or unethical for Gary Gygax to take orcs from Tolkien and use them in AD&D? Was it immoral for GW to create models of orcs for use with AD&D? Was it immoral for GW to base Cadians and Tyranids off of ideas from the Aliens movie? Was it immoral for GW to use the word space marines when someone else had coined the term decades before? I don't think any of that is immoral in any way. There is nothing wrong with taking an idea and running with it.

But GW took the idea and made something out of it , in their own line aka Warhammer Fantasy and 40K

samethings cant be said with the other points you mentioned. As well as many anti CH posts shared the same reason.

But CH hasn't been around for almost 40 years either. If your argument is that they haven't made anything of themselves then you have to give them the time to do so. And honestly morality shouldn't be based on making something of yourselves. Either takings someone elses idea and doing something with it is moral or it isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:

brettz123 wrote:Personally I don't get the morality / ethical discussion at all. Was it immoral or unethical for Gary Gygax to take orcs from Tolkien and use them in AD&D? Was it immoral for GW to create models of orcs for use with AD&D? Was it immoral for GW to base Cadians and Tyranids off of ideas from the Aliens movie? Was it immoral for GW to use the word space marines when someone else had coined the term decades before? I don't think any of that is immoral in any way. There is nothing wrong with taking an idea and running with it.

Well, there's never really been anything wrong with running with an idea (space elf wizard in armor), and it's always been wrong to steal a complete expression of an idea (duping copies of Eldrad).

Where things get stickier is when you take strong elements from an expression of an idea and recycle them into a new piece. This particular instance looks like somebody looked at every eldar farseer, boiled them down to their elements, and created a new one. No single aspect is completely taken, nothing directly matches, but as Luna pointed out, it was designed to, at the least, fit right in with GW farseers, and succeeds at that.

So, are we going to say that you shouldn't take motifs and themes? Are we saying the rule should be that pieces that look like a different version of something else aren't allowed? If this is immoral, why? What's the rule, and how would we apply it to other things?

It's an interesting discussion. Part of me hopes that there is some moral rubric we can articulate, but most of me thinks that my more cynical view that the morality of these things is rooted more in taste or personal value than any rule.

I think you and I actually agree to a large degree. The doomseer or whatever they are calling it is certainly some kind of Eldar Farseer. It doesn't look like any other Farseer specifically but there is no mistaking the intent. Personally I see what CH is doing and I don't really like it but to me there just really isn't anything unethical about it.

Maybe I am being a little too legalistic but I don't think they are violating the law by selling the item. Now I understand it would be great if everyone could come up with original stuff to sell but I don't expect people to do so. Morally I just am not sure it is something we should start applying to the creation of little tiny men and unfortunately there is no clear cut agreement among people about how to judge morality.

Well, apparently since GW got big enough to have lawyers to work with, they have gone after others for their infringing on what is basically GW's infringements of other properties.
A 1999 WD article for the release fo the Nids said quite simply in a nutshell: Well, while we are awre of the resemblance to a certain films' creature(ref+Hive tyrant) we feel it is easier to get forgiveness that permission) It was years later, when AVP was being released that the HT for the Nids got a new head look and the body had some elements of their first HT, coincidence? GW ain't saying!

Over the years
IG: Dune house troopers/Soviet and other real world armies.
Space Marines: Sardakaur from Dune mixed with the Mobile Infantry of Star-ship Troopers.
CSM, Mutated version of above

Space Orks: Well, those guys were all over Tolkien/DnD etc.

Eldar and Dark Eldar: Tolkien again!

Tyranids: so many space movies about slavering monsters in space, take your pick

Necrons: Terminator meets the Mummy/Stagate SG-1

Tau: StarWars/Appleseed/other anime/manga

Need I go on?

CH is merely handling for the most part stuff that GW either has yet to work on, or did not think to work on. Pay licensing or royalties maybe, but still so much that GW has offered in armny books and codecii that are not models and it has been well a long time since the Ork Codex came out and still no sign of Zogwart! or the rumored omni Buggy-Skorcha-Wartrakk kit!

My nid playing friends are still waiting on like 8 different models for their armies.

shasolenzabi wrote:Well, apparently since GW got big enough to have lawyers to work with, they have gone after others for their infringing on what is basically GW's infringements of other properties.
A 1999 WD article for the release fo the Nids said quite simply in a nutshell: Well, while we are awre of the resemblance to a certain films' creature(ref+Hive tyrant) we feel it is easier to get forgiveness that permission) It was years later, when AVP was being released that the HT for the Nids got a new head look and the body had some elements of their first HT, coincidence? GW ain't saying!

Over the years
IG: Dune house troopers/Soviet and other real world armies.
Space Marines: Sardakaur from Dune mixed with the Mobile Infantry of Star-ship Troopers.
CSM, Mutated version of above

Space Orks: Well, those guys were all over Tolkien/DnD etc.

Eldar and Dark Eldar: Tolkien again!

Tyranids: so many space movies about slavering monsters in space, take your pick

Necrons: Terminator meets the Mummy/Stagate SG-1

Tau: StarWars/Appleseed/other anime/manga

Need I go on?

CH is merely handling for the most part stuff that GW either has yet to work on, or did not think to work on. Pay licensing or royalties maybe, but still so much that GW has offered in armny books and codecii that are not models and it has been well a long time since the Ork Codex came out and still no sign of Zogwart! or the rumored omni Buggy-Skorcha-Wartrakk kit!

My nid playing friends are still waiting on like 8 different models for their armies.

You left out

Chaos: Elric
Cadians/Space Marines in general: Alien/Doom/Heinlein for god's sake...
Catachans design and some story elements: Predator (Makes Cambodia look like Kansas)
Last Chancers: Kelly's Heroes
High Elfs design, and By Extension, Eldar: Elric

ah, the list goes on...

BaronIveagh wrote:
You left out

Chaos: Elric
Cadians/Space Marines in general: Alien/Doom/Heinlein for god's sake...
Catachans design and some story elements: Predator (Makes Cambodia look like Kansas)
Last Chancers: Kelly's Heroes
High Elfs design, and By Extension, Eldar: Elric

ah, the list goes on...

Oh, Elric's chaos is so orderly, but they do use the chaos star.

I did say Starship troopers which is Heinlein, Dune as in the house guards for the IG
Aliens for the Nids as well

Catachans, yeah, predator/Vietnam

Last Chancers: I feel they are more like the "Dirty Dozen" where the one colonel makes an offer for redemption to the worst criminals in the Army by going on suicidal raids.

Kelly's Heroes was more a treasure hunt.

I think Chapterhouse should keep pumping this stuff out. Without 3rd party retaliers/designers GW would rule the industry *shudder*

What annoys me is that Chapterhouse seems so blatant about its product's names and purpose. I mean, really, why not just call them anything but Eldar sculpts? Sure, the name might not be cool, but it's almost like they're trying to get in trouble with GW...

I like some of Chaptehouses stuff and have ordered from them in the past. I do not think they should start making complete models though and stick to making things that are added onto a GW product rather than replacing them entirely. That to me is biting the hand that feeds you and far more likely to get you in trouble.

Chapterhouse's products are crap. I don't know why anything beyond that statement is relevant to anyone.

Please stick to the topic, which is the morality not the perceived quality of the models.

Cryonicleech wrote:I think Chapterhouse should keep pumping this stuff out. Without 3rd party retaliers/designers GW would rule the industry *shudder*

What annoys me is that Chapterhouse seems so blatant about its product's names and purpose. I mean, really, why not just call them anything but Eldar sculpts? Sure, the name might not be cool, but it's almost like they're trying to get in trouble with GW...

GW are NOT the industry. (Thank God!)

Please remember this or all is lost.

CHS are not our saviours, they exist only to profit off the back of GW's lack of customer focus.

I see nothing immoral in what they are doing.

Or unethical.

If I, as a third party producer, was capable of filling perceived voids in another company's product line (that they themselves were unable or unwilling to fill), and I could do so without treading on legal toes (this means using the SAME inspiration or concepts that their works is derived from, if it is not an "original" concept), then as I see it, I have an "ethical" reason for doing so.

CHS big mistake was using the trademarked names that GW use. Making third party parts that are compatible with a given joint system is a grey area at the best of times.

Mr. Burning wrote:CHS are not our saviours, they exist only to profit off the back of GW's lack of customer focus.

How dare they try to make a profit. Certainly no other business I can think of exists to make a profit...

In this debater on morality/legality has anyone asked about the consequences? Not to Chapterhouse as that means court which is sitting.

I mean for us.

If I get a wheeled Chimera or different Farseer where can I take it? We can guess but I would rather not guess.

Has anyone here had a miniature disallowed from play because of non-scratchbuilt third party content?

Orlanth wrote:If I get a wheeled Chimera or different Farseer where can I take it? We can guess but I would rather not guess.

You can take it the same places you can any other manufacturers. GW isn't the only company out there. Enforced GW purity only occurs in a tiny part of the wider hobby. How does the Chapterhouse thing affect this? There are many other companies, there always have been. What exactly will change, GW has long had the policy that only their stuff should be used in their stores. You wheeled Chimera is the same as your Scibor general.

Has anyone here had a miniature disallowed from play because of non-scratchbuilt third party content?

Only in GW stores and at their sponsored events.

People who won't allow non-GW figures on the table in a private game are sad sad people IMO. They do exist, it's an elitist thing, there's no other reason to bar non-GW stuff from a private game. If you're on GW company soil well that's their private premises, you don't have a right to game, you have to abide by their rules whatever they are.

My advice is that as armies are expensive to make, make one however you like, do what you want. If GW don't like it, well just avoid their stores. It's not like losing the privilege to play in a shop full of screaming kids is anything to get upset about.

augustus5 wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:CHS are not our saviours, they exist only to profit off the back of GW's lack of customer focus.

How dare they try to make a profit. Certainly no other business I can think of exists to make a profit...

Where did I say they shouldn't make a profit?


Both CHS and GW exist to sell products into a specific market place and, like GW, CHS exist to make money out of their business concern?

CHS are just like GW they are not good or bad.

Oh great, another circular argument for legalistic nincompoops. Leave the law to the lawyers and go back to your day jobs, for crying out loud.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Oh great, another circular argument for legalistic nincompoops. Leave the law to the lawyers and go back to your day jobs, for crying out loud.

Nope, we are not discussing the law in detail. This discussion is more aimed at finding out why there so much of a problem with one particular third party vendour when the same issues don't exist with the greater majority of other vendours. There have been some interesting points brought up if you bother to read the thread.

Luna, I understand where you are coming from, but I will try an analogy that might explain what I'm getting at.

There is a line called Hello Kitty, they do loads of stuff but there are some gaps. A market trader comes along, spies the gaps and starts selling 'Eyup Cat' that almost perfectly copies the style and designs in the Hello Kitty range. The trader is very vocal that Eyup Cat is his own idea and he came up with it by accident having previously played with the other range. The trader also comes up with spurious reasons for the similarities. Is that ethical? Or would it have been better to take the idea and come up with something new that would allow them to trade without the constant calls of copycat? Maybe the vendour could have come up with Doggi Hi, which would have been an original if still parallel version of the range?

I think the bit that sticks in my throat is the taking directly from the range and not giving us new. GW could come up with a million new things, and is not beholden to produce them. I like third party manufacturers that can come up with their own take on 40k. New Kromlek jetbike anyone?

Agamemnon2 wrote:Oh great, another circular argument for legalistic nincompoops. Leave the law to the lawyers and go back to your day jobs, for crying out loud.

Thanks for that, that was really helpful.

Having come from a fairly bewildered point on the morality issue here, I've enjoyed this thread quite a bit. It's interesting to see people's take on this, and their reactions to others arguments. Re: stealing from Tolkein, this seems to be a fundamental part of Western society now, it's so common. Especially galling, since Tolkein came up with his stuff with no influence from anywhere at all! Wasn't even slightly based on, say, a mythology from a certain pre-Christian society. Nope. You can point the influence finger all you like, but it's rare you'll find something truly unique from something that came before.

Morally speaking? I don't think CHS have done anything wrong. However, it's clear, utterly, that they are making miniatures that are supposed to be representations of things from the 40K universe. I still don't consider this to be a moral issue, rather a legal one.

Oh, and Captain Jack, I would definitely buy a selection of Eyup Cat merchandise. Especially if said cat were depicted in a flat cap.

Kilkrazy wrote:Please stick to the topic, which is the morality not the perceived quality of the models.

I still argue that the perceived quality is essential to the argument of perceived morality, at least of the practical morality of it.

If one's view of morality is based on harm, specifically monetary damages, crappy models that don't sell don't really do any damage.

If one's view of morality is based on the harm to the visual aesthetic of 40k, than crappy models cause more harm.

If one's view of morality is based on a utilitarian sense of "what's best for the community, meaning GW, 3rd party vendors, and hobbyists," than a poor model may not compensate for the violation of IP, where a better model would.

The perceived quality is really only irrelevant in a discussion based on relatively strict moral laws, the violation of which is immoral regardless of consequence. There do appear to be some arguing such a line of thought, based on the simple principle that "stealing another's ideas is wrong." That line of though opens up interesting cans of worms though, as we start trying to articulate a rule that lays out exactly how much idea is ok to borrow, while avoiding anything approaching a legalistic solution.

Given the poor results at articulating a specific moral code, I think that the perceived quality is, rather than irrelevant, the single biggest element in the analysis for most people.

Putting tits on a Scorpion does not a new miniature make. Its just a change of gender. Eldar have appeared in male and female guise for years. If CH want to fill gaps in lines and such (and I have no real issue with people filling gaps in their armies when GW refuse to release the relevant items, or even conversion parts, and feel GW should just license out and shush.) then that is no problem. I do have a problem with this strange dishonesty where people are claiming these are "nothing like the original" when anyone with eyes can see that they are very much like the original. Also, if the work is sub-standard, then I see no problem with GW taking issue with it either. Who wants to be associated with rubbish?

Polonius wrote:I still argue that the perceived quality is essential to the argument of perceived morality, at least of the practical morality of it.

If one's view of morality is based on harm, specifically monetary damages, crappy models that don't sell don't really do any damage.

If one's view of morality is based on the harm to the visual aesthetic of 40k, than crappy models cause more harm.

If one's view of morality is based on a utilitarian sense of "what's best for the community, meaning GW, 3rd party vendors, and hobbyists," than a poor model may not compensate for the violation of IP, where a better model would.

The perceived quality is really only irrelevant in a discussion based on relatively strict moral laws, the violation of which is immoral regardless of consequence. There do appear to be some arguing such a line of thought, based on the simple principle that "stealing another's ideas is wrong." That line of though opens up interesting cans of worms though, as we start trying to articulate a rule that lays out exactly how much idea is ok to borrow, while avoiding anything approaching a legalistic solution.

Given the poor results at articulating a specific moral code, I think that the perceived quality is, rather than irrelevant, the single biggest element in the analysis for most people.

This is either incredibly insightful, or completely irrelevant, while favouring the former I won't discount the latter.

The court case is based on GW seeking monetary damages, so in that respect, I think, what we should be basing our coments upon is the first definition.

The second definition should only be used where there is another criteria that would force someone to purchase those items. For example cost. But that then involves an elitist element, if you can't afford it you shouldn't be doing it. On the whole CHS ranks, pricewise, on a par with other manufacturers, and their single figures apparently are more expensive than the GW equivalent (Yes/No?)

The third definition, I feel, is completely wrong. Our society is determined by a common sense of code, our laws which are based upon a consensus of what is right or wrong. Using the term 'violation' would infer an illegality or use, which regardless of how you put it would be immoral. I do not think that the end justifies the means, in any circumstance.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:
This is either incredibly insightful, or completely irrelevant, while favouring the former I won't discount the latter.

Well, this thread was founded on the dubious notion of debating the morality of the action seperate from it's legality.

The legal questions are being determined as we speak, but many posters seem to have strong moral views on this independent of the legalities.

The court case is based on GW seeking monetary damages, so in that respect, I think, what we should be basing our coments upon is the first definition.

Sort of. They're mostly seeking an injunction to stop CHS from making their stuff. If they do seek damages, it will likely be stautory damages (meaning money awarded by the statute of the law itself per violation) rather than actual damages (the economic loss suffered by GW at the hands of CHS). Given the nature of much of CHS's stuff, you can make the argument that GW has actually benefitted, because they sell more product to use with CHS accessories.

The second definition should only be used where there is another criteria that would force someone to purchase those items. For example cost. But that then involves an elitist element, if you can't afford it you shouldn't be doing it. On the whole CHS ranks, pricewise, on a par with other manufacturers, and their single figures apparently are more expensive than the GW equivalent (Yes/No?)

Well, sort of. There's the argument that the visual look of 40k Eldar has value, and anything that takes away from that diminishes that value. I believed Kan feels strongly that CHS accessories on armies at his FLGS look poor. You can make the argument that there are creative rights in establishing a "look and feel," and something that apes that but changes it (particualrly if poorly) is insulting or hurtful to the creator. I don't think it's a strong argument.

The third definition, I feel, is completely wrong. Our society is determined by a common sense of code, our laws which are based upon a consensus of what is right or wrong. Using the term 'violation' would infer an illegality or use, which regardless of how you put it would be immoral. I do not think that the end justifies the means, in any circumstance.

There's a lot packed into that paragraph. If we allow legal analysis, than yes, any violation of the law is inherently immoral, as it's a moral duty to uphold the rule of law.

Removing the legal aspect, however, and purely looking at it as a moral issue, is what I was talking about. And for most people , most of the time, the ends will often justify the means.

The reason I think the third view is the general moral view for this sort of thing is that you can't really create a rule that makes sense. Look at the jetbike farseer CHS makes. How is that any less an obvious knock off than the doomseer? There are differences: the bikeseer is seated, a few details change. The bigger difference is that the model is useful. The community benefitted. What's the benefit to the community for the doomseer?

Polonius wrote:

The reason I think the third view is the general moral view for this sort of thing is that you can't really create a rule that makes sense. Look at the jetbike farseer CHS makes. How is that any less an obvious knock off than the doomseer? There are differences: the bikeseer is seated, a few details change. The bigger difference is that the model is useful. The community benefitted. What's the benefit to the community for the doomseer?

Aesthetics over rules or vice versa. If GW don't do a bikeseer, and a player lacks the ability to build one, then its "filling a gap" in the rules, increasing the playability of the game. As far as I know "boobs" do not confer a rules or game advantage unless they are prominent and attached to the opposing player, and even then that "perk" (self-groan.) is not a part of the game as sold. The piece is an entirely decorative variation. It doesn't need to exist. Millions of games can take place with other seer models already produced by GW. (I'm aware of two, but then I'm a few releases behind.)

@ArbeitSchu: that's my point. It's not that CHS violated a rule, but that they violated a rule in a way that isn't benefiting the community. Or at least not as much as some people would like.

There are, very broadly speaking, two major views of morality: Kantian and Utilitarian.

Kant held that things are only moral if they are always moral. Lying is often immoral, therefor a person should never lie. Under this view, knock-offs are wrong and should never be done.

Mill, a utilitarian, held that actions are moral if they have a net positive value. So lying to your girlfriend about how much you like her cooking is moral, because it makes her happy and does no real harm. Under this view, knock-offs are moral when they benefit the community.

both have massive problems. Under kant, it's difficult to impossible to come up with a rule for IP that doesn't either stifle all innovation or relies on a clunky legal system. Under Mill, targetted looting that leaves an IP holder with nothing could be allowed.

In practice, most people tend to vary between the two ideals. Or, more likely, a hybrid, in which the breaching of rules is, in itself, a net loss to society that requires a pretty large benefit to balance out.

So, we know that copying is wrong, but some copying is inevitable. We need to draw the line someplace, but there's no way to really determine where, other than "I know it when I see it." So, for the most part, the "rule of cool" kicks in, where if somebody does something innovative and interesting and useful (see starcrafts appropration of marines, or the bikeseer), we let it slide. When something is deriviative and unneccessary (see doomseer), we don't approve.

Polonius wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Please stick to the topic, which is the morality not the perceived quality of the models.

I still argue that the perceived quality is essential to the argument of perceived morality, at least of the practical morality of it.

As fuzzy as it may make the case seem, I'd have to agree, and state the entire AoW line as an example for the other side of the equation!

Polonius wrote:Well, this thread was founded on the dubious notion of debating the morality of the action seperate from it's legality.

I am simply shocked to read this.

Manchu wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, this thread was founded on the dubious notion of debating the morality of the action seperate from it's legality.

I am simply shocked to read this.

Why?

Very seldom can the two concepts be completely seperated.

They can always be separated. Nothing is wrong because it is illegal. Very little is illegal only because it is wrong -- and the trend is that such a thing is insupportable.

Manchu wrote:They can always be separated. Nothing is wrong because it is illegal. Very little is illegal only because it is wrong.

It depends on your moral theory. In a society that places a premium on rule of law, respecting even laws with no moral consequence (say, a zoning law regarding decorative features), can be seen as a moral imperitative. On the flip side, most laws do have moral components. Some aspects of the law (things like specific tax exemptions or other exceptions) may have poltiical bases, rather than moral ones, but IP law is not different from many other laws. It is designed to primarily do two things: encourage innovation, and protect the creative rights of innovators.

I'm still not sure why my assertion was "shocking." perhaps you disagree with it, but you must be easily shocked if a fairly pedestrian philisophical concept shocks you.

You also run into interesting concepts of morality. Most morality is based on the idea of harm. Yes, Kant argues that some actions are inherenlty wrong independent of harm, but most western morality is based on the idea of immoral acts being harmful, either to society, another, the self, or even the divine. So, by many arguments, violating an environmental regulation would be immoral if it's harmful to society. For years pornography was seen as immoral because it would harm the viewer.

What's less common now are laws with "moral" basis that aren't harmful to society or another. Sodomy laws are a great example: two consenting adults, no harm, no foul. That has less to do with a shift in our law, and more to do with a shift in how we percieve harm.

Polonius, I now see what you're getting at, but I would not necessarily agree with the premise. If A & B both originate from the same basis, but A is good and B bad therefor we accept A but decry B, you have to admit to a certain level of hypocracy in the stance. Which is illistrated in the differences between Kant & Mill

People here have been arguing as black and white when, and lets face it here, it's all shades of gray.

As I said earlier in the thread, some are promoting an absolute here rather than face the possibility of there is no right or wrong.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:Polonius, I now see what you're getting at, but I would not necessarily agree with the premise. If A & B both originate from the same basis, but A is good and B bad therefor we accept A but decry B, you have to admit to a certain level of hypocracy in the stance. Which is illistrated in the differences between Kant & Mill

I'm not quite understanding this. Can you clarify or expand it?

People here have been arguing as black and white when, and lets face it here, it's all shades of gray.

As I said earlier in the thread, some are promoting an absolute here rather than face the possibility of there is no right or wrong.

Of course, I totally agree. Or perhaps even more distressing, there is right and wrong, we're just comfortable as people ignoring the wrong in many cases.

That the question of quality was essential to the determination of what was moral.

While it could be/is a major factor in certain points of view I don't feel that it is essential.

Cheers

Andrew

PS Oh and in response to your last sentence, not only do I agree wholeheartedly, the thought just scares the **** out of me.

AndrewC wrote:That the question of quality was essential to the determination of what was moral.

While it could be/is a major factor in certain points of view I don't feel that it is essential.

Well, than that leads to the obvious question: what is essential to the determination? What rule? What facts?

As for my latter sentence, I think most high functioning people can acknowledge that there are rules that should usually, if not almost always, be followed. We also understand the need for wiggle room. Morality is a means to govern human actions, which tend to be very complicated.

So, a rule like "don't copy another's work" is a good rule. Most of the time it's easy to enforce. But, when the benefit is great enough, and the actual harm to the original creator minimal enough, we have no problem ignoring it.

We do it every day. People shouldn't kill each other is a great rule. A rule I like a lot. But what about self defense? What about war? What about accidents? We start finding exceptions, not out of a lack of morality, but out of practical necessity.

And we then get back into the world of gray areas. Balance of probabilities and suchlike. I admit that quality can factor highly into such an equation, and did so, I just don't feel it is essential.

But the erosion of right and wrong into what's convenient at the time scares me no end. For example why are we bombing Libya, where the rebels can fight back, as opposed to Syria, where they can't? But thats a bit OT.

The point that this thread was created to answer was:

Are the eldar sculpts legal?
Are they 'moral'
Are they 'ethical'

To each of those answers only the individual can decide, but then their response is only applicable to them. To make a group decision we really should look at group dynamics, which in this case is the law, which is why I proposed that we should only look at this situation from the first viewpoint rather than the second or third.

Sorry, but lack of sleep (the little nurgling isn't sleeping through the night) is beginning to kick in. I'm not ignoring the thread, but I wont be posting in it for the next few hours.

Cheers

Andrew

In a sense, I agree with you that the legal approach to this is better than trying to split a moral hair.

I mean, morals aren't personal. Scruples are, but if something is immoral, we're saying it's immoral, not that we find it immoral. Sometimes people disagree, but for the most part right and wrong are pretty universal.

There is an alternative moral argument that nobody has brought up: that of intent. The question isn't whether this sculpt is moral or immoral, but is CHS's intent and motives moral or immoral. I think you can make a better case here. CHS took an idea (farseer), and expressed it differently but pretty similarly to GW's, solely for the purpose of creating something that would fit in. Now, there's no real evidence it was done to trick people, or to hurt GW, but they still intentionally made something as close as possible while staying legal.

Still though, the same could be said about a lot of their other work. The same could definitly be said about other 3rd party manufacturers. It can also be said about all the thinly veiled miniatures released by Reaper and others. The "almost but not quite" indiana jones or malcolm reynolds, among others.

So, I'd argue that intent alone isn't enough to generate the outrage. We're still governed, in practice, by the "rule of cool."

chromedog wrote:

CHS big mistake was using the trademarked names that GW use. Making third party parts that are compatible with a given joint system is a grey area at the best of times.

The problem is that GW would claim everything that even touches the 40k universe as it's trademark, too. I'm told by a source I consider reasonably reliable they once, in an attempt to build on WotC's claim to have trademarked 'collectable card game', that they tried to find a way to trademark 'wargaming'. If you read through the list of things they claim to copyright or trademark, there are quite a few generic terms, such as space marine (which has been around longer then GW has existed).

So, is it moral of them to sue someone over property they really don't own themselves?

BaronIveagh wrote:

chromedog wrote:

CHS big mistake was using the trademarked names that GW use. Making third party parts that are compatible with a given joint system is a grey area at the best of times.

The problem is that GW would claim everything that even touches the 40k universe as it's trademark, too. I'm told by a source I consider reasonably reliable they once, in an attempt to build on WotC's claim to have trademarked 'collectable card game', that they tried to find a way to trademark 'wargaming'. If you read through the list of things they claim to copyright or trademark, there are quite a few generic terms, such as space marine (which has been around longer then GW has existed).

So, is it moral of them to sue someone over property they really don't own themselves?

This is a completely false. There are plenty of other sci-fi settings that flourish happily alongside GW's universe. The point you seem to be missing is that GW have taken great care and time to develope their own universe so that it is as different as possible to other universes while taking influence from elements throughout the ages. The trademarks are only really aplicable to the 40k universe in the various scales produced. There has never been any difficulty with starcraft or any of the other games, indeed starcraft and WOW were offered to GW before online gaming became the collosus that it is.

The problem seems to be that a lot of current gamers are blind to the fact that there are some really good competators out there with their own settings and background. Privateer Press? Malifaux? Ork War 2? There are plenty of settings for those with the will to think outside of the box.

I would also like to deny the statement that if a mini is good enough it should or is overlooked as being wrong. I don't believe that should be the case. What I do believe should be celebrated are those that manage to take a measure of influence from the GW universe and provide genuine altenative minis and not relative copies (good or bad).

Captain Jack wrote:
This is a completely false. There are plenty of other sci-fi settings that flourish happily alongside GW's universe. The point you seem to be missing is that GW have taken great care and time to develope their own universe so that it is as different as possible to other universes while taking influence from elements throughout the ages. The trademarks are only really aplicable to the 40k universe in the various scales produced. There has never been any difficulty with starcraft or any of the other games, indeed starcraft and WOW were offered to GW before online gaming became the collosus that it is.

Incorrect. Please read GW's policies on Intellectual Property. Under said, if you were to suggest an idea on a website *you* own, it can still become *their* property without having to credit you in the least.

And if by 'different as possible to other universes while taking influence from elements throughout the ages' you mean 'stole everything that wasn't nailed down to the point they, themselves, faced the possibility of suit by their own admission' then yes, you are correct. GW has, in fact, had 'scales produced' running from 1:1500ish up to 1:1

AND actually there was a great deal of problems with the original Warcraft in particular, which was originally designed as Warhammer but GW supposedly backed out at the last moment doing a deal instead with another company (SSI [IIRC]). Blizz then went back and changed enough of it to dodge copyright laws as they then existed, and released it was Warcraft. Rumor has it that GW and blizz have been having extensive back room legal reindeer games ever since.


I suggest that 'morally' GW is virtually bankrupt, and freely 'borrow' as much from whatever is popular as they can under the law from whatever is popular at the time the codex comes out. I do not think that C:SW and C:BA being selected to come out when they did was not influenced by the success of a certain sparkly vampire book and move series.

I'm confused.

Who were they aiming at by releasing C:SW and C:BA when Twilight came out? The millions of tween girls who are fans of 40k AND Twilight?

As an aside from the eldar style miniatures in question, I think CHS are brilliant. Admittedly I've only come across them today from all the hoo-ha posted ondakka about legality this and lawsuit that, but consider this;

When I started SM's 10 years ago, there were sod all extras out there. It was nigh on impossible to find (for my 14 year old self) the upgrade parts that I wanted. What if I wanted to make a special sculpt to represent a primarch and wanted more than a standard marine with a bit more colour?

CHS make it possible for us to represent the aspects of our minis that we want to show off in detail insteadof counts as. They have some lovely designs and I have no doubt that they're only going to get better.

It's a shame in some ways that GW aren't saying come on board - lets work together - you do what you do and we'll give you a license to use our brands in exchange for xyz as I think doing so would only benefit us - the gamers, and ultimately the real story tellers - in areas that GW haven't had the resource etc to roll out specific items.

My only suggestion would be CHS drop the use of other companies branding unless they have permission to use it (including any copyrighted rune designs).

I had another really valid point to make but have wittered on far too much and forgotten... I hate it when that happens.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Captain Jack wrote:
This is a completely false. There are plenty of other sci-fi settings that flourish happily alongside GW's universe. The point you seem to be missing is that GW have taken great care and time to develope their own universe so that it is as different as possible to other universes while taking influence from elements throughout the ages. The trademarks are only really aplicable to the 40k universe in the various scales produced. There has never been any difficulty with starcraft or any of the other games, indeed starcraft and WOW were offered to GW before online gaming became the collosus that it is.

Incorrect. Please read GW's policies on Intellectual Property. Under said, if you were to suggest an idea on a website *you* own, it can still become *their* property without having to credit you in the least.

Yes if you are posting about GW, and as I understand it that statement is to protect GW rather to attack users as suggested.

And if by 'different as possible to other universes while taking influence from elements throughout the ages' you mean 'stole everything that wasn't nailed down to the point they, themselves, faced the possibility of suit by their own admission' then yes, you are correct. GW has, in fact, had 'scales produced' running from 1:1500ish up to 1:1

Nope, there is nothing wrong with being influenced by current and past ideas. The problem comes if those ideas are not presented differently to the original, even father Tolkien did this. Is Tolkien to be viewed in the same light, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

AND actually there was a great deal of problems with the original Warcraft in particular, which was originally designed as Warhammer but GW supposedly backed out at the last moment doing a deal instead with another company (SSI [IIRC]). Blizz then went back and changed enough of it to dodge copyright laws as they then existed, and released it was Warcraft. Rumor has it that GW and blizz have been having extensive back room legal reindeer games ever since.

I'm sure I just said that...


I suggest that 'morally' GW is virtually bankrupt, and freely 'borrow' as much from whatever is popular as they can under the law from whatever is popular at the time the codex comes out. I do not think that C:SW and C:BA being selected to come out when they did was not influenced by the success of a certain sparkly vampire book and move series.

You are entitled to your views, but I believe you are very wrong in your outlook. There will always be an element of influence in everything that is produced, be it something of the times or Hollywood (a place somewhat devoid of originality in itself).

LOL, I can't see any connection to sparkly vampires as the viewers of those films are farr too kool to visit a GW

Kanluwen wrote:I'm confused.

Who were they aiming at by releasing C:SW and C:BA when Twilight came out? The millions of tween girls who are fans of 40k AND Twilight?

You obviously have never read some of the space marine fanfics I have. (And wanted to burn my eyeballs afterwards.) I got the definite impression that the writers thought that Space Marines looked like they just stepped off the cover of a bodice ripper under that armor.

GW's marketing is convinced that the tween market is where it's at, actually. Remember that they don't care about you, the older player, as you probably already own most of the minis you will buy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Captain Jack wrote:
Yes if you are posting about GW, and as I understand it that statement is to protect GW rather to attack users as suggested.

Only mods get to write red at me.

And, no, it has been used to attack users in the past, and probably will again in the future. (Read the text of some of GW's C&D's)

Captain Jack wrote:Nope, there is nothing wrong with being influenced by current and past ideas. The problem comes if those ideas are not presented differently to the original, even father Tolkien did this. Is Tolkien to be viewed in the same light, or are you being deliberately obtuse?

There's a difference between 'influenced' and 'plagiarized'. Tolkien was 'influenced' by European mythology (and only very noticeably in his later works). As far as GW goes: Please identify the minis below:



Those helmets look familiar? They should! However, these are NOT High Elves. Despite the fact that several of them had minor alterations to the sculpts and were sold as such! These, however, are melnibonean cavelry. GW briefly held the rights to Moorcock's Eternal Champion series, and looted it for everything they could, until they lost the rights. Then, to twist the knife a little more, they did minor alterations to the sculps (mostly arm swaps and an alteration to one helmet) and POOF High Elf Cav! They didn't even have to change that distinctive armor appearance they stole from the melnibonean's from Moorcock's Elric series, and continue to use it to this day for Elves and Eldar.

So, tell me how moral they are to sue someone else for stealing what they stole first?

You know, I have to be a complete idiot. I had totally forgotten Melnibonean armor from the Elric books. I had forgotten the distinctively high, almost ovoid helmets; I had totally forgotten that they were the inspiration for the modern High Elf and Eldar helmets.

I haven't read the Elric books in a little bit, but I don't remember the helms being described as 'ovoid'.

I remember that they were high, but weren't they described to be more like standard greathelms with huge decorations?

Don Maitz


(Sorry, hard to see, I couldn't find a good pic of this one around)

Chris Achilleos:



Rodney Matthews:



James Cawthorn (the original Elric illustrator)

Manchu wrote: pics

Except none of those where actually NAMED 'Melnibonean Cavalry' and then RENAMED 'High Elf Cavalry' when they lost the license, by Games Workshop.

I used to use them as Wood Elf cavalry. They mixed well with the actual wood elf cavalry models of the time.

It seems to be your belief that the concept design of the helmet originated outside of GW and was specific to the Elric book covers. I cannot agree as I have seen tall conical helmets in many different fantasy pictures and, as I posted, in historical artefacts. The rebranding of a fairly generic line of models by the company that owns them (cf. Wargames Foundry) has no bearing on the issue of the intentional, wholesale rip off of a unique science fiction concept by a company that does not own the models imitated.

Manchu wrote:It seems to be your belief that the concept design of the helmet originated outside of GW and was specific to the Elric book covers. I cannot agree as I have seen tall conical helmets in many different fantasy pictures and, as I posted, in historical artefacts. The rebranding of a fairly generic line of models by the company that owns them (cf. Wargames Foundry) has no bearing on the issue of the intentional, wholesale rip off of a unique science fiction concept by a company that does not own the models imitated.

My point was that in the particular case of Eldar, Games Workshop is claiming that CH is derivative work. For this to have meaning, they have to own the 'original' work. In this case, a clear trail of Games Workshop's own 'property' can be made showing that it, in and of itself, is a derivative work, and therefor GW has neither moral nor legal rights to pursue this issue.

It's a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.

They should stick to a dilution argument, that they're trying to prevent their line from becoming generic.

I'm still waiting to see Elves in Space.

Kanluwen wrote:I'm still waiting to see Elves in Space.

I'll refer you to Spelljammer or FFG's own Dragon Star setting for D20.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Manchu wrote: pics

Except none of those where actually NAMED 'Melnibonean Cavalry' and then RENAMED 'High Elf Cavalry' when they lost the license, by Games Workshop.

Touchy. However, at least GW had the licence in the first place. Again, you are going to a place and time that is completely different to that which is happening currently. During the early period of GW/Citadel there was pretty much no fantasy or sci-fi wargaming compaired to todays myriad offerings, and there was only the odd magazine to keep people informed of what was going on. I have never maintained that GW is whiter than white, every company makes mistakes and has faults. The difference is in modern times you need only turn to google for a few minutes to prevent reoccurance. At least they bothered to do some resculpting before rereleasing them.

The corelation between the minis of CHS and what you have pointed out is virtually non existant. Licenced, then changed compaired to copying needlessly.

Captain Jack wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Manchu wrote: pics

Except none of those where actually NAMED 'Melnibonean Cavalry' and then RENAMED 'High Elf Cavalry' when they lost the license, by Games Workshop.

Touchy. However, at least GW had the licence in the first place. Again, you are going to a place and time that is completely different to that which is happening currently. During the early period of GW/Citadel there was pretty much no fantasy or sci-fi wargaming compaired to todays myriad offerings, and there was only the odd magazine to keep people informed of what was going on. I have never maintained that GW is whiter than white, every company makes mistakes and has faults. The difference is in modern times you need only turn to google for a few minutes to prevent reoccurance. At least they bothered to do some resculpting before rereleasing them.

The corelation between the minis of CHS and what you have pointed out is virtually non existant. Licenced, then changed compaired to copying needlessly.

The point is that it is a flaw in GW's claim of 'ownership' of the 'original' material being copied. Morally, they don't have any right to claim that CH stole their work, which they stole from the producers of the early Stormbringer RPG when they were licensed to produce minis for Eternal Champion, which where in turn derived from Moorcock's Elric.

Effectively, the entire argument is a game of Six Degrees of Michael Moorcock. Moorcock produced Elric, which lead to Stormbringer, which lead to the Eternal Campions minis which were rebranded High Elves, which became Eldar in 40k. Did it in 4.

Captain Jack wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:Oh great, another circular argument for legalistic nincompoops. Leave the law to the lawyers and go back to your day jobs, for crying out loud.

Nope, we are not discussing the law in detail. This discussion is more aimed at finding out why there so much of a problem with one particular third party vendour when the same issues don't exist with the greater majority of other vendours. There have been some interesting points brought up if you bother to read the thread.

Luna, I understand where you are coming from, but I will try an analogy that might explain what I'm getting at.

There is a line called Hello Kitty, they do loads of stuff but there are some gaps. A market trader comes along, spies the gaps and starts selling 'Eyup Cat' that almost perfectly copies the style and designs in the Hello Kitty range. The trader is very vocal that Eyup Cat is his own idea and he came up with it by accident having previously played with the other range. The trader also comes up with spurious reasons for the similarities. Is that ethical? Or would it have been better to take the idea and come up with something new that would allow them to trade without the constant calls of copycat? Maybe the vendour could have come up with Doggi Hi, which would have been an original if still parallel version of the range?

I think the bit that sticks in my throat is the taking directly from the range and not giving us new. GW could come up with a million new things, and is not beholden to produce them. I like third party manufacturers that can come up with their own take on 40k. New Kromlek jetbike anyone?

Look up Hello Kitty and Miffi the Rabbit.

Try to draw a cartoon animal character for children using front perspective and the minimum number of lines. Make it simple and cute. See what you come up with.

CH's Doomseer has a number of differences to the GW Farseer models, yet people are calling it a copy because the overall impression is that it comes from the same area of concepts.

What are the things that make it a copy? It has the following elements.

High skull helmet with face mask
Wing horns on the helmet.
Jewels on the wings.
Plate armour with decoration.
Robes over the plate armour.
Shoulder pads to hang the robes from.
A sword or spear with gubbins on.

How many of these elements are unique to GW models?
How many are directly copied on the CH model?
Is it the overall combination which is unique to GW?
What should be removed or changed in order to make it sufficiently different to be acceptable? (Let's assume that CH want to be "moral" and you as a moral person want to help them.)

BaronIveagh wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I'm still waiting to see Elves in Space.

I'll refer you to Spelljammer or FFG's own Dragon Empire setting for D20.

Spelljammer was published in 1989.
Rogue Trader was published in 1987.

I looked and couldn't find mention of Dragon Empire, but I wasn't really looking that hard.

So to summarize:
Does GW have a time machine? Because some of the accusations leveled at them require one.

Please enlighten me as to from where GW stole the idea of "Eldar Farseer."

Don't (continue to) kid yourselves -- CHS has made a model of an Eldar Farseer.

As has been noted time and again, the whole point of this business strategy is to produce an Eldar Farseer model.

That's what they did.

No amount of blurring your vision (or reason) until you cannot see the obvious copying of concept -- yes, I am aware this is not a a recast -- will change the simple fact that CHS has made an Eldar Farseer model.

Elves are a cultural archetype of ancient provenance, widely used in modern fantasy.

40K was originally WHFB in space. Just putting the Elves in space doesn't make them an original concept.

Mr. Spock was probably the first Elf in Space, a rebooted version with slightly different characteristics to the fantasy type..

Kilkrazy wrote:High skull helmet with face mask
Wing horns on the helmet.
Jewels on the wings.
Plate armour with decoration.
Robes over the plate armour.
Shoulder pads to hang the robes from.
A sword or spear with gubbins on.

This is a good list. It summarizes every single significant aspect of CHS's Doomseer models. And, yes, it also summarizes every single aspect of GW's Farseer models. Now, a model with two or three points of similarity is one thing. A model with seven points -- especially when there are really only seven points that the model can even be said to exhibit in total -- is another matter.

But beyond cataloging how this model is a less-well-executed version of Citadel Eldar Farseer with a slightly different pose, let's pull back once again to the concept. Whatever the particular shape of the miniature sculpt, this is a clear representation of an Eldar Farseer. "Eldar Farseer" is a whole and entire idea, not something bound merely to certain shapes, and that idea is unique. And that specific idea, not an idea like it or inspired by it, but that very idea itself is what CHS used to produce their own model of an Eldar Farseer.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Captain Jack wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Manchu wrote: pics

Except none of those where actually NAMED 'Melnibonean Cavalry' and then RENAMED 'High Elf Cavalry' when they lost the license, by Games Workshop.

Touchy. However, at least GW had the licence in the first place. Again, you are going to a place and time that is completely different to that which is happening currently. During the early period of GW/Citadel there was pretty much no fantasy or sci-fi wargaming compaired to todays myriad offerings, and there was only the odd magazine to keep people informed of what was going on. I have never maintained that GW is whiter than white, every company makes mistakes and has faults. The difference is in modern times you need only turn to google for a few minutes to prevent reoccurance. At least they bothered to do some resculpting before rereleasing them.

The corelation between the minis of CHS and what you have pointed out is virtually non existant. Licenced, then changed compaired to copying needlessly.

The point is that it is a flaw in GW's claim of 'ownership' of the 'original' material being copied. Morally, they don't have any right to claim that CH stole their work, which they stole from the producers of the early Stormbringer RPG when they were licensed to produce minis for Eternal Champion, which where in turn derived from Moorcock's Elric.

Effectively, the entire argument is a game of Six Degrees of Michael Moorcock. Moorcock produced Elric, which lead to Stormbringer, which lead to the Eternal Campions minis which were rebranded High Elves, which became Eldar in 40k. Did it in 4.

Melniboneans appear to be a proto-slaanesh/Dark Elf twist on Tolkien Elves. Eldar the name was taken from Tolkien, but the concepts involved in "Space Elves" are somewhat different to those of Melnibone or Valar. Again it comes down to recycling tropes. But the CH Farseer/Scorpion are not any kind of evolution of someone elses miniatures. They are just the same range..with breasts.

Kilkrazy wrote:Elves are a cultural archetype of ancient provenance, widely used in modern fantasy.

Which Elves are we talking about?

40K was originally WHFB in space. Just putting the Elves in space doesn't make them an original concept.

Was it done before? No? Then it's an original concept.

Mr. Spock was probably the first Elf in Space, a rebooted version with slightly different characteristics to the fantasy type..

I don't remember Mr. Spock being called an elf...

He did have pointy ears though, so point to you I guess?

Manchu wrote:[

But beyond cataloging how this model is a less-well-executed version of Citadel Eldar Farseer with a slightly different pose, let's pull back once again to the concept. Whatever the particular shape of the miniature sculpt, this is a clear representation of an Eldar Farseer. "Eldar Farseer" is a whole and entire idea, not something bound merely to certain shapes, and that idea is unique. And that specific idea, not an idea like it or inspired by it, but that very idea itself is what CHS used to produce their own model of an Eldar Farseer.

Personally, I liked the CH version better the the CM version, but that aside.

Actually it's not even close to being unique as it's Lady Galadriel IN SPACE (Very nearly literally in this case) dolled up in stuff the stole from the Elric books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Was it done before? No? Then it's an original concept.

Except it was done before. Several times, as a matter of fact. I suspect Kan is ignoring me.

I'll toss you a real loop: Spelljammer, 40k, and Dragon Star all have space elves spirits joining their ships when they die, IIRC.

The first Elf to travel into outer space appears in Tolkein, of all bloody places, in the Silmarillion. (Granted, he's helped by the gods to get there)

Some of the next ones appeared in a little something called Green Lantern.

This may be a little late, but I've been in this kind of discussion before and thought I could deliver some input. If I could make money selling blatantly re-hashed 40K models for cheap, I would do it. Especially if I had ambition to make money off of what I love. It is a ripe field for income, if GW wouldn't swat every mimic out of the sky. Yes, it is plagiarism, if only by the spirit of the deed. I personally don't find it appalling. Frankly, while copyrights and intellectual property laws exist to protect inventors and entrepreneurs, the only way companies will provide better services or lower prices is from either competition or poor sales. So, I encourage pretenders to the throne, though I may not buy from them.

I agree with Manchu.

The most likely way CHS would survive a full-on lawsuit would be to prove that the character the model represents is not GW's intellectual property. Alternatively, they would have to do a lot of tapdancing to be able to prove that they are not making "Eldar". Sure, they may change a feature or two to avoid an easy lawsuit, but they're not kidding anyone. Pardon me if my semantics are off, but you get the idea.

Remember Universal Studio's lawsuit against Nintendo for the use of Donkey Kong? I suspect most of you don't, but Nintendo won after a bitter struggle by proving that Donkey Kong wasn't a recreation of King Kong, and Universal Studios didn't own King Kong anyway. And they barely won. Considering how much of a difference is apparent between Donkey Kong and King Kong, CHS' model probably wouldn't have a chance. Additionally, I suspect CHS' legal staff to be a bit less well-funded than GW, who can at least afford to bring suit to a host of imitators.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Was it done before? No? Then it's an original concept.

Except it was done before. Several times, as a matter of fact. I suspect Kan is ignoring me.

I'll toss you a real loop: Spelljammer, 40k, and Dragon Star all have space elves spirits joining their ships when they die, IIRC.

The first Elf to travel into outer space appears in Tolkein, of all bloody places, in the Silmarillion. (Granted, he's helped by the gods to get there)

Some of the next ones appeared in a little something called Green Lantern.

I would suggest you read the post I addressed to you.

Spelljammer was created in 1989. Rogue Trader was first published in 1987. When were Eldar introduced to Rogue Trader?

You SERIOUSLY have to be reading a different Silmarillion than I am, and I've got a first edition of it.

The big question is, and this is the one that might hurt chapterhouse, is if GW can prove lost revenue or that CH somehow has damaged their brand (doubtful).

Again, I say that, morally speaking, if CH is culpable, then so is everyone who charged to make a greenstuff head for a 40k mini for someone.

Kan, I think he's actually right. If memory serves, and it's been a long time since I read it, but isn't there an ending in it where the protaganist ascends to the heavens on a boat pulled by swans?

Or is sleep deprivation creeping in again.

Cheers

Andrew

(edited for spelling, definately sleep deprivation!)

BaronIveagh wrote:

Manchu wrote:It seems to be your belief that the concept design of the helmet originated outside of GW and was specific to the Elric book covers. I cannot agree as I have seen tall conical helmets in many different fantasy pictures and, as I posted, in historical artefacts. The rebranding of a fairly generic line of models by the company that owns them (cf. Wargames Foundry) has no bearing on the issue of the intentional, wholesale rip off of a unique science fiction concept by a company that does not own the models imitated.

My point was that in the particular case of Eldar, Games Workshop is claiming that CH is derivative work. For this to have meaning, they have to own the 'original' work. In this case, a clear trail of Games Workshop's own 'property' can be made showing that it, in and of itself, is a derivative work, and therefor GW has neither moral nor legal rights to pursue this issue.

It's a matter of the pot calling the kettle black.

They should stick to a dilution argument, that they're trying to prevent their line from becoming generic.

+1!

AndrewC wrote:Kan, I think he's actually right. If memory serves, and it's been a long time since I read it, but isn't there an ending in it where the protaganist ascends to the heavens on a boat pulled by swans?

Or is sleep deprivation creeping in again.

Cheers

Andrew

(edited for spelling, definately sleep deprivation!)

Which is lifted from classic mythology, and has nothing to do with Space Elves...

diesel7270 wrote:Additionally, I suspect CHS' legal staff to be a bit less well-funded than GW, who can at least afford to bring suit to a host of imitators.

I think it's actually the other way round. From some of the comments in the other threads, CHS' lawyers have a greater reknown in the IP business than GWs'

I also suspect that this was the GW test case before going for other manufacturers, CHS was more blatent in their use of GW terminology as opposed to some others were/are. CHS called a spade a spade rather than a utensil to move dirt around. At the end of the day we all know what it is, what it's for and how to use it. It may have been that GW saw this a 'certanty' with which to create a precedent to close the others down. But that's only idle speculation on my part.

Cheers

Andrew

For the argument of CH filling the void in the FW / GW product line.

Does that mean when GW / FW came out with the products , CH should pull out the said product?

For example lots of the chapter shoulders and vehicle armor upgrades.

AndrewC wrote:

I think it's actually the other way round.

Huh. I had no idea. I just figured, you know, bigger company equals more expensive lawyers. I guess CHS must have snagged the good ones. Or maybe GW figures their legal standing to be so solid, they can skimp on legal representation. Of course, from the casual consumer's observation of their business practices, they may just be trying to make even more money by not paying the best lawyers.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Which is lifted from classic mythology, and has nothing to do with Space Elves...

In which case the CHS work is derivative from classical mythology.

I get your point Arbeit, I do, but you have to admit that inspiration for all GW works, no matter how established they are always seem to have an alternative origin from elsewhere.

But Tolkien is God and no-one may use his works without paying their dues!

Not that I'm a huge fan is getting in the way of my view.....

Cheers

Andrew




Automatically Appended Next Post:

diesel7270 wrote:Huh. I had no idea. I just figured, you know, bigger company equals more expensive lawyers. I guess CHS must have snagged the good ones. Or maybe GW figures their legal standing to be so solid, they can skimp on legal representation. Of course, from the casual consumer's observation of their business practices, they may just be trying to make even more money by not paying the best layers.

I know, but then CHS's lawyers are doing this probono, ie free. Up until they offered to represent them, CHS was up the proverbial creek.

Cheers

Andrew

Somehow this has gotten off-track with how GW has borrowed some creative concepts from classic archetypes, however, it seems to me that the real matter is that chapterhouse is making models to be used in a table top wargame. And not just any tabletop wargame, one that requires rolling 3+ on a die to make an armour saves for some sort of "space marine". Chapterhouse is directly trying to steal GWs business. It is morally wrong.

AndrewC wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Which is lifted from classic mythology, and has nothing to do with Space Elves...

In which case the CHS work is derivative from classical mythology.

I get your point Arbeit, I do, but you have to admit that inspiration for all GW works, no matter how established they are always seem to have an alternative origin from elsewhere.

But Tolkien is God and no-one may use his works without paying their dues!

Not that I'm a huge fan is getting in the way of my view.....

Cheers

Andrew

I think its more the basis of all works everywhere: That somebody has done something similar before. Tolkien lifted Orcs and Goblins from earlier books and mythology, just like the Elves are lifted heavily from Norse and similar myth-cycles. Anything based on legend and mythology (which is all fantasy) is going to stand on the shoulders of giants. CH aren't standing on the shoulders of giants though. They're hanging bra-straps off them and calling it their own.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Somehow this has gotten off-track with how GW has borrowed some creative concepts from classic archetypes, however, it seems to me that the real matter is that chapterhouse is making models to be used in a table top wargame. And not just any tabletop wargame, one that requires rolling 3+ on a die to make an armour saves for some sort of "space marine". Chapterhouse is directly trying to steal GWs business. It is morally wrong.

Kamikaze, you are quite right and I have went seriously OT.

Legally, CHS has done nothing wrong, if they had then the present legal action would not be required and there would be a legal precedent set by which GW could point to and use to shut them down.

Morally and ethically, as Polonius points out as scruples, is a personal viewpoint and can only, really, be binding upon yourself. However you could also take your decription above and slot any third party mod company name in there and the statement still rings true.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Somehow this has gotten off-track with how GW has borrowed some creative concepts from classic archetypes, however, it seems to me that the real matter is that chapterhouse is making models to be used in a table top wargame. And not just any tabletop wargame, one that requires rolling 3+ on a die to make an armour saves for some sort of "space marine". Chapterhouse is directly trying to steal GWs business. It is morally wrong.

Kamikaze, you are quite right and I have went seriously OT.

Legally, CHS has done nothing wrong, if they had then the present legal action would not be required and there would be a legal precedent set by which GW could point to and use to shut them down.

Morally and ethically, as Polonius points out as scruples, is a personal viewpoint and can only, really, be binding upon yourself. However you could also take your decription above and slot any third party mod company name in there and the statement still rings true.

Cheers

Andrew

Legal precedent always has to start somewhere.

Agreed, which is why I'm looking forward to the coming weeks. But a few on here have already built the gallows for CHS.

Kanluwen wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Was it done before? No? Then it's an original concept.

Except it was done before. Several times, as a matter of fact. I suspect Kan is ignoring me.

I'll toss you a real loop: Spelljammer, 40k, and Dragon Star all have space elves spirits joining their ships when they die, IIRC.

The first Elf to travel into outer space appears in Tolkein, of all bloody places, in the Silmarillion. (Granted, he's helped by the gods to get there)

Some of the next ones appeared in a little something called Green Lantern.

I would suggest you read the post I addressed to you.

Spelljammer was created in 1989. Rogue Trader was first published in 1987. When were Eldar introduced to Rogue Trader?

You SERIOUSLY have to be reading a different Silmarillion than I am, and I've got a first edition of it.

"Now when first Vingilot was set to sail in the seas of heaven, it rose unlooked for, glittering and bright; and the people of Middle-earth beheld it from afar and wondered, and they took it for a sign, and called it Gil-Estel, the Star of High Hope." - The Silmarillion.

Granted, the Spelljammer Box set was printed in 1989. It's progenitor, the original Expedition to the Barrier Peaks was printed in 1980. (According to most sources, Gygax first tossed an elf (and the rest of the party) into space at Origins II in 1976)

Several early issues of Dragon contained things such as how to add Elves etc to Metamorphosis Alpha.

An interesting aside that I forgot: How does Games Workshop get off claiming copyright on 'Space Marine' when a sci-fi tactical warcame called 'Space Marines' is mentioned in May, 1978 issue of Dragon (with errata)?

Well then, I need to seriously reread The Silmarillion, because I do not remember that.

GW based their space-faring elves on Earendil? I think all good will has collapsed in this current of the discussion.

AndrewC wrote:Morally and ethically, as Polonius points out as scruples, is a personal viewpoint and can only, really, be binding upon yourself. However you could also take your decription above and slot any third party mod company name in there and the statement still rings true.

Cheers

Andrew

I wouldn't go that far. I think there are moral rules that are more or less universal (cross culturally, some things are more or less moral).

One thing that was mentioned by KC is that CHS is trying to steal GW's sales. Looking at the farseer, yeah, it's meant to compete directly with GW farseers.

You can argue, I think, that CHS is trying to sell their own farseer, at the expense of GWs, which would lead to a tangible harm.

What's interesting is that many of the leading advocates of CHS's immorality might not accept this argument, as it presupposes one vital fact: that CHS's farseer includes features, independent and distinguishable, from the GW model range to make a person make the purchase.

Meaning, the only hope CHS has of selling their model, as the cost is essentially the same, is if people actually prefer there's to the the GW ones. Given the rabid hate of the model, many seem unwilling to concede that somebody might actually prefer it.

I suppose it's possible that CHS thinks that their model is superior, and can compete on it's own merits.

You could also argue that CHS may have introduce a few features that people prefer, but that the model as a whole is still a knock off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:GW based their space-faring elves on Earendil? I think all good will has collapsed in this current of the discussion.

No offense Manchu, but I'm not sure you're the best gauge of goodwill in this thread.

Kanluwen wrote:Well then, I need to seriously reread The Silmarillion, because I do not remember that.

Yeah, you do. The Vanar put Earendil's sailing ship in the sky and it shone like a star because he and his wife possessed a Silmaril.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:

Manchu wrote:GW based their space-faring elves on Earendil? I think all good will has collapsed in this current of the discussion.

No offense Manchu, but I'm not sure you're the best gauge of goodwill in this thread.

And vice versa.

Manchu wrote:GW based their space-faring elves on Earendil? I think all good will has collapsed in this current of the discussion.

No, the point was that Kan asserted that 'space elves' were an original idea. However, pointy ears other then Spock have been taking off into the heavens for some time before GW started doing it.

The point being that 40k has very little 'original' content. Even many of the writers for BL are either stylistically (Mitchell) or literally (Zou, IIRC) plagiarizing other works.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Manchu wrote:GW based their space-faring elves on Earendil? I think all good will has collapsed in this current of the discussion.

No, the point was that Kan asserted that 'space elves' were an original idea. However, pointy ears other then Spock have been taking off into the heavens for some time before GW started doing it.

Since we're splitting hairs:
There's nothing saying he established a race traversing the stars in giant worldships.

The point being that 40k has very little 'original' content. Even many of the writers for BL are either stylistically (Mitchell) or literally (Zou, IIRC) plagiarizing other works.

Zou is a cruddy writer. So is Mitchell. What's your point?

Spock was not an elf. Earendil was not a space elf. These are both disingenuous examples.

Kanluwen wrote:
Since we're splitting hairs:
There's nothing saying he established a race traversing the stars in giant worldships.

No, world ships were taken from other places (Book of the Long Sun, Metamorphosis Alpha, Rendezvous with Rama)

Manchu wrote:Spock was not an elf.

Never said he was. Remember that 'pointy ears' is a disparaging comment that gets applied to both elves and Vulcans.

Manchu wrote:Earendil was not a space elf.

No, but he was an Eldar (IIRC).

"Now when first Vingilot was set to sail in the seas of heaven, it rose unlooked for, glittering and bright; and the people of Middle-earth beheld it from afar and wondered, and they took it for a sign, and called it Gil-Estel, the Star of High Hope." - The Silmarillion.

And if you find a similar passage in the Bible, (which you will) then it will be "Space-Jesus"? I think you're making a bit of a leap there between a mythological reference and Star-dwelling Space Elves. Also, SpellJammer isn't like 40k either, except in so far as it translates certain fantasy races to space.

...

Great. Now I'm getting Space Christians in my head. THANK YOU ARBEITS.