I don't have any in-depth knowledge of IP law, so I'll leave the detailed analysis to people who do, but just as I see it I see some things to think about. On the one hand I think it's pretty obviously inspired by the Loxatl, but on the other hand is this another situation where it could be argued that this is too broad an idea (I guess in this case it would be "sci fi giant lizards") for GW to claim ownership of? Do certain features, such as the presence of a specific "belly gun" type weapon as depicted in the artwork and mentioned several times in BL books (Gaunt series especially), swing things more in GW's favour?
It's hard to find pictures of the miniature, in fact it looks like they've taken all pictures of it off their site, but here are some images of the model:
I know I'm going to get ripped for this, but those two look pretty close. This is much better than their other silly IP lawsuits. Not that this one isn't silly, just closer to not silly than the others.
From the letter
"There an an infinite number of ways which an armed mutant komodo dragon could have been depicted and yet your figure copies all of the key characteristics of our Loxotl artwork."
Cheers Pretre, I couldn't work out how to bring the pics over.
If it doesn't count as IP infringement if it's from one medium to another then that could undermine GW's whole case, but if not they could have a pretty strong argument.
It looks like some aspects of the model are subtly different - I'd add that perhaps the face is a bit different looking (the one in the painting is quite happy-looking with rounder eyes and perhaps a slightly different shaped head, it' hard to tell), in addition to the chunkier looking hands with less fingers. But would BW be able to argue that it isn't IP infringement if they point to small differences like that, or would they be considered mere token changes that don't make it different enough?
Personally,I think GW jumping on people for being 'inspired' by other people's artistic endeavours is risking opening a can of worms every time they do it.
But logic and legality do not always make the easiest bedfellows!
azreal13 wrote: Personally,I think GW jumping on people for being 'inspired' by other people's artistic endeavours is risking opening a can of worms every time they do it.
But logic and legality do not always make the easiest bedfellows!
While I agree that they are way over zealous, this one is a bit more cut and dry than Spot the Space Marine.
I don't blame GW for this one, but I will let the Dakka Armchair Legal brains decide if they have a case or not.
C&D letters are cheap and easy to send... why not send them? This is more valid than Lammasu and Spots and probably one of their stronger attempts so maybe the new legal team is getting smarter about where 'the line' is.
There are also an infinite number of ways a Loxatl can be drawn. Pull the other one GW...
How can companies like Heresy and Hasslefree do "not" Doctor Who minis for example and not get squashed by the BBC, yet Blight Wheel do exactly the same (nowhere does this say it is a GW Loxatl) and GW goes in all guns blazing? Have Chapterhouse got them that spooked?
Even if they are somewhat in the right, they've just annihilated any goodwill they may have had left with an entire convention's worth of customers.
Flashman wrote: I don't see it myself. Similar perhaps, but not similar enough IMHO.
Does GW own the rights to space lizards now?
Read the letter. Same stance, same hands, same gun under the chest, same bandolier of bullets, same head implant. One or two would be meh, whatever, but all of them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimtuff wrote: How can companies like Heresy and Hasslefree do "not" Doctor Who minis for example and not get squashed by the BBC, yet Blight Wheel do exactly the same (nowhere does this say it is a GW Loxatl) and GW goes in all guns blazing? Have Chapterhouse got them that spooked?
Yes. GW is crazy spooked right now, I would guess.
Flashman wrote: I don't see it myself. Similar perhaps, but not similar enough IMHO.
Does GW own the rights to space lizards now?
Read the letter. Same stance, same hands, same gun under the chest, same bandolier of bullets, same head implant. One or two would be meh, whatever, but all of them?
Meh, maybe. I pity the GW staff who have to scour the internet looking for barely perceptible similarities to company designs.
Flashman wrote: Meh, maybe. I pity the GW staff who have to scour the internet looking for barely perceptible similarities to company designs.
I don't know that I would call it 'barely perceptible'. They look pretty close to me.
I do feel sorry for the folks who have to track this stuff, but I imagine it isn't difficult. It's probably the same guy who surfs around on blogs and forums. If that guy actually exists and they don't just have a tip line.
Dynamix wrote: So were not going to get our free Salute Minis then courtesy of GW - nice PR GW even if you may be in the right on this one
This is why we can't have nice things. :(
I thought the free Salute mini this year was a Spartan/Greek hoplite?
It's a Blight Wheel specific offer, if you pick up at least £50 worth of stuff preordered from them you'll get one, and they are supposed to have a limited number at their stall on the day, and again if you spend £50 you'll get one. Whether that will be happening now, I don't know. I'm hoping to attend the show myself so I might try to swing by their area and see what's going on...
RatBot wrote: GW certainly isn't a bastion of originality, by any stretch, but this miniature is at the very least in extremely sketchy territory.
I've never seen the GW creature before, it must be a fairly obscure publication and it's certainly not one of their main races.
It looks like a lizard with a bullet belt to me. GW is getting desperate.
All those bits in your first line is true, but that doesn't mean it's a coincidence. I'd like better, more detailed pictures of the miniature, but it does look like the belt and the gun are identical to the ones in the concept art.
I think it's pretty well known that I have very little love for GW and their shenanigans, but with this one I'm not so sure that GW is completely in the wrong. With that said, if GW never planned on producing a model for this piece of art, then it seems a tad moot; it's not like GW's going to be losing any sales here.
RatBot wrote: GW certainly isn't a bastion of originality, by any stretch, but this miniature is at the very least in extremely sketchy territory.
I've never seen the GW creature before, it must be a fairly obscure publication and it's certainly not one of their main races.
It looks like a lizard with a bullet belt to me. GW is getting desperate.
They're in the Gaunt books...I think Dan Abnett invented them. They were also in the Fire Caste book for a bit. The book the picture is from is a background book for the Gaunt series and has now been out of print for a while.
In other words, if you don't read BL stuff, you would have to hunt around to even have heard of them.
I can see where GW is coming from on this particular matter, it's a far greater resemblence than the Spots case, but even still, unless they have a model in the planning for the Loxatl, how is this detrimental to their company? As mentioned before with the Da Vinci joke, there are many, many aspects that GW could easily be sued over.
Edit: If this is really the case, surely Satan and the minions of the Underworld can issue a C&D to GW saying that they have based their Bloodthirster model around depictions that are part of the Antichrist's IP, particularly in regards to:
- Red skin - Canine-like head - Presence of curved horns - Equine-style hooves - Weapons of torment such as a whip
*Meanwhile, over in Games Workshop HQ, a letter is hastily dispatched to the artist who originally drew the Loxatl. Inside is a casual reminder that whilst he signed the rights to it over to them, they just happen to have lost the paperwork, so if he could just sign along the dotted line and send it back...?*
I would assume that IP rights do extend across media. Otherwise why would a company need rights to make figures based on the Hobbit movie. They could just call them Habbit figures and make them look just like Hobbit ones.
I think the Blight Wheel miniature is highly derivative of the GW art. (However, the pose is different. In the GW art the figure looks like it is climbing down a wall and onto the ground, hence the scratch marks behind its rear feet.) GW really needs to get off of its butt and start making these figures, as presumably people would buy them.
RatBot wrote: GW certainly isn't a bastion of originality, by any stretch, but this miniature is at the very least in extremely sketchy territory.
I've never seen the GW creature before, it must be a fairly obscure publication and it's certainly not one of their main races.
It looks like a lizard with a bullet belt to me. GW is getting desperate.
All those bits in your first line is true, but that doesn't mean it's a coincidence. I'd like better, more detailed pictures of the miniature, but it does look like the belt and the gun are identical to the ones in the concept art.
I think it's pretty well known that I have very little love for GW and their shenanigans, but with this one I'm not so sure that GW is completely in the wrong. With that said, if GW never planned on producing a model for this piece of art, then it seems a tad moot; it's not like GW's going to be losing any sales here.
Clearer pictures and close-ups would be nice.
I'm not sure what's in it for GW to pursue this. They are claiming ownership of a lizard with some bits on it. Sure, it does, now that I look closely, bare resemblance to their art, but what does that mean? In all other means it's just a generic lizard with weapons and I think it's been established that having art of something doesn't mean you own the 3D representation of it.
It makes me sad, GW are just pathetic. They stand to gain nothing from this, the model is a limited give away with purchases over a certain amount, so it's not being 'sold' for anything as such. And it's a model of something they are almost certainly never going to make, and it's of something that doesn't stray onto the miniatures of any of their main ranges from which they do make money. Their IP is under no threat from this, most people probably won't spot the similarity to any prior art. All GW are achieving is looking like complete dicks yet again. Are they just scratching around to find reason to create ill-will against them?
That may not be IP infringement, but it's an example of GW's moral hypocrisy with regards to copying themes and ideas.
I don't think anyone is going to argue that GW has not copied themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I'm not sure what's in it for GW to pursue this. They are claiming ownership of a lizard with some bits on it. Sure, it does, now that I look closely, bare resemblance to their art, but what does that mean? In all other means it's just a generic lizard with weapons and I think it's been established that having art of something doesn't mean you own the 3D representation of it.
It makes me sad, GW are just pathetic. They stand to gain nothing from this, the model is a limited give away with purchases over a certain amount, so it's not being 'sold' for anything as such. And it's a model of something they are almost certainly never going to make, and it's of something that doesn't stray onto the miniatures of any of their main ranges from which they do make money. Their IP is under no threat from this, most people probably won't spot the similarity to any prior art. All GW are achieving is looking like complete dicks yet again. Are they just scratching around to find reason to create ill-will against them?
Not entirely true. As we have found out with other IP cases if they don't defend their IP, they may lose the right to be exclusive about it. As someone brought up above, Chapterhouse has them shaken and they are going to be much more aggressive about things now.
spaceelf wrote: I would assume that IP rights do extend across media. Otherwise why would a company need rights to make figures based on the Hobbit movie. They could just call them Habbit figures and make them look just like Hobbit ones.
They don't and they can. The reason for the licenses is that nobody would buy knock-off figures if they were obvious knock-offs. Having the license means you get all the cool logos, screengrabs, etc. to use in promoting your stuff. If you were a LotR fan, would you buy a Frodo figure with the LotR logo from the store or the Frappo figure with the Legend of the Rogues logo?
pretre wrote: Not entirely true. As we have found out with other IP cases if they don't defend their IP, they may lose the right to be exclusive about it.
Perhaps the best policy with things that are so insignificant is just ignore them. To point them out by sending a C&D and then not pursuing it does make a public statement that you are not attempting to defend your IP, which I imagine could be hazardous. So don't do that. Just don't register they exist, because it's just too far beneath you to notice, seems the best way. There are so many 'counts as' miniatures online, no studio has ever been suggested to be at risk of losing their IP. This idea that GW's IP is at risk if they don't jump on every tiny thing that looks anything like their stuff is just wrong. Otherwise companies would be losing their IP all over the place because of all the products that are inspired by this and that but which they don't notice because they are in interests that are too niche.
I would be one of the last peopel to say that GW hasn't been doing shed-loads of stupid stuff lately, but I can certainly understand this one.
As far as I can remember, while the loxatl show up in several black library novels, there's only one image of them that I remember, and that's the one posted in this thread from the Xenology book.
I'm not a lawyer, and I have no particular expertise in IP law, but when you make a model of a Sci-Fi Mutant Komodo, and base the stance, pose, features, and equipment directly off the ONLY image published by GW, you have only yourself to blame.
It would have been trivially easy to sculpt the 'mutant komodo' in a different pose than the GW artwork, and trivially easy to make it look more distinct from that artwork.
I'm not claiming it was illegal, but I think it was certainly lazy, sloppy, and a jerk move. I don't think it's a 'vague resemblance'. A space lizard with a belly gun would be a vague resemblance, but a space lizard with the same pose, same details, and same equipment? That's a damn copy.
Go ahead and crib stuff from GW all you want. I'd love to buy me some space lizards, and I like the Space Dwarfs that are out there (which GW doesn't sue anybody over). But for Pete's sake, take the idea and do your own version of it, instead of slavishly copying it. Have some respect for yourself.
azreal13 wrote: Isn't it already established that IP infringement can't cross mediums? So a 3D sculpt of a 2D artwork is not an issue?
Copyright in the United States carries with it the ability to do "derivative works" - which are expressive works based upon another pre-existing and protected work. I would describe your statement as not accurate. This isn't legal advice though.
Not a lawyer, but do know a bit about IP law - not legal advice etc etc
Games Workshop themselves seem to be under the impression that artwork protects miniature IP, which is not true in a number of countries.
As for "habbit" miniatures, try looking for "halfling" miniatures and you will find some pretty damn close ones.
Names are protected, so the Dr Who miniatures are not labeled as such, thus are fine. If they were provided pre-painted there might be a case to argue that a consumer might get confused between them a action figure, but if I was in a jury, I'd be pretty insulted that the company thinks I'm so stupid as an ordinary person as to be unable to tell the difference.
Chapterhouse really does have them spooked - its going to be an epic, groundshaking case, so its no wonder they are getting free representation.
I honestly can not see GW winning that one, and I think this is them making the same mistake of confusing artwork as protecting against miniature IP claims.
azreal13 wrote: Isn't it already established that IP infringement can't cross mediums? So a 3D sculpt of a 2D artwork is not an issue?
Copyright in the United States carries with it the ability to do "derivative works" - which are expressive works based upon another pre-existing and protected work. I would describe your statement as not accurate. This isn't legal advice though.
Neither GW or Blight Wheel are based in the US, so while I still remain unsure as to the accuracy of my statement, I am confident in saying that yours has no bearing in it.
RatBot wrote: GW certainly isn't a bastion of originality, by any stretch, but this miniature is at the very least in extremely sketchy territory.
I've never seen the GW creature before, it must be a fairly obscure publication and it's certainly not one of their main races.
It looks like a lizard with a bullet belt to me. GW is getting desperate.
All those bits in your first line is true, but that doesn't mean it's a coincidence. I'd like better, more detailed pictures of the miniature, but it does look like the belt and the gun are identical to the ones in the concept art.
I think it's pretty well known that I have very little love for GW and their shenanigans, but with this one I'm not so sure that GW is completely in the wrong. With that said, if GW never planned on producing a model for this piece of art, then it seems a tad moot; it's not like GW's going to be losing any sales here.
Clearer pictures and close-ups would be nice.
I'm not sure what's in it for GW to pursue this. They are claiming ownership of a lizard with some bits on it. Sure, it does, now that I look closely, bare resemblance to their art, but what does that mean? In all other means it's just a generic lizard with weapons and I think it's been established that having art of something doesn't mean you own the 3D representation of it.
It makes me sad, GW are just pathetic. They stand to gain nothing from this, the model is a limited give away with purchases over a certain amount, so it's not being 'sold' for anything as such. And it's a model of something they are almost certainly never going to make, and it's of something that doesn't stray onto the miniatures of any of their main ranges from which they do make money. Their IP is under no threat from this, most people probably won't spot the similarity to any prior art. All GW are achieving is looking like complete dicks yet again. Are they just scratching around to find reason to create ill-will against them?
Oh, I absolutely agree with you that the Blightweel miniature doesn't harm them in any fashion, they themselves are known to copy from others so this is rather hypocritical, and they're making themselves look like jackasses (again), I'm merely saying from a strictly "lawful neutral" (to put it in nerdy terms ) standpoint I can actually see this being a potentially legitimate grievance.
RatBot wrote: I'm merely saying from a strictly "lawful neutral" (to put it in nerdy terms ) standpoint I can actually see this being a potentially legitimate grievance.
Exactly.
This miniature doesn't harm GW and GW themselves were never going to make a Loxatl model (shame, as I've wanted a few since I saw its rules in Mark of the Xenos). But this mini does look like a Loxatl. It's not a passing resemblance either.
WotC did almost the exact same thing to a KS I backed for making 'not' versions of some of their literary characters. They simply didn't want someone to make miniatures which were clearly their character in every way shape and form except for name. WotC doesn't want to make a mini, but it is still their character, and it dilutes their control for being able to use it however they want.
The KS changed the model design and colorschemes to be a unique Darkling ranger instead of "Not-Drizzt Do'Urden" and Aged wizard instead of "Not-Elminster"
WotC was in the right regardless if they make the Mini or not and the company responded reasonably because they wer clearly designing something off someone else's IP. And simple changes in design made both parties happy and customers still get what they want.
This idea that anyone can just make a model of anyone else's character and that is 'free game' isn't reality and GW isn't the only one who sends out C&D letters to mini makers.
Ketara wrote: *Meanwhile, over in Games Workshop HQ, a letter is hastily dispatched to the artist who originally drew the Loxatl. Inside is a casual reminder that whilst he signed the rights to it over to them, they just happen to have lost the paperwork, so if he could just sign along the dotted line and send it back...?*
Unless GW Legal are completely imcompetent I would imagine they might have learned from the CH case , and made sure they actually own the copyright on this artwork
The question is really one of scope of copyright protection. That is a fact intensive inquiry. What in GW's artwork is "protected expression?" Does the accused work copy that "protected expression?"
It is a lizard, that looks like a lizard, because it is supposed to be a lizard. Specifically, it looks very much like a komodo dragon. Obviously, real lizards are a reference that informs both works of art. The lizard has a gun, that looks like a gun, etc. etc.
Now, taking all of that into account, does the accused work appropriate that which makes the artwork unique, keeping in mind that a similar concept is not enough? Are the differences between the works, of which there are many, insubstantial or insignificant differences?
Now, it seems to me that GW has a point here. In my opinion, this is an example of a reasonable claim, as in a claim that is reasonable compared to the hundreds and hundreds of other claims that GW has made in the past. Is the accused work a copy of GW's artwork? Maybe, maybe not. Given GW's performance in asserting its alleged rights in the past, GW may actually be woefully unable to prove ownership of any "loxatl" artwork.
The more important question to ask is, "Why?" Why in the Hell does GW give a crap about this? How does it benefit GW, in the long run, to assert its rights in this instance? Does GW feel that it may at some point in the future release a loxatl product? If so, is GW concerned about competing with this product? Does GW feel that it will not be able to compete with this product?
Artists reference other artwork all of the time. Artists steal from other artists all of the time. That is how art works. Doubtless one could find what inspired the GW loxatl in the first place, because there is something out there that did.
GW is trying to wall off its fictional universe, regardless of how porous the borders of that universe are in terms of originality and regardless of how relatively insignificant a portion of that universe may be. It does not benefit anyone, not even GW. Is this Blight Wheel thing wrong? Hell, I don't know. But that is not the point. The point is that like this is a drag on the whole community. Blight Wheel makes some cool products plenty of which are designed to allow GW's customers to enhance their enjoyment of GW's products.
Want to play a GW game? Want to have a loxatl in that game? GW does not, and has not for more than a decade, created or sold a loxatl product. Don't have the wherewithal to make your own loxatl, well now you can get one from Blight Wheel. You can buy your boxes of Cadian Shock Troops, Leman Russ Tanks, Chimeras, Sentinels, etc. etc. from GW, separately buy your not-Blood-Pact head bits from a third party manufacturer, or get some Forge World cultists, and round your army off with a not-loxatl model from Blight Wheel.
You read a GW novel, got inspired, purchased a load of GW products, and are having a fun time with GW's games, proselytizing GW to your friends and associates, explaining that your army is a converted Blood Pact army from the Ghost series. Why the Hell is GW upset about that?
Or, GW could throw its weight around against a tiny French company, stomp out the not-loxatl product, piss all over its customer goodwill, and watch that guy who was going to make a Blood Pact army get deep into Warmahordes, Malifaux, Infinity, Warpath, etc. etc. etc.
darkslife wrote: I honestly can not see GW winning that one, and I think this is them making the same mistake of confusing artwork as protecting against miniature IP claims.
It seems important to me that they don't win it. Because if they do on the back of them being found to own many of the things that claim they do, I think it will put them in a position of great power to attack many others, even those that are not remotely infringing on them, because GW will claim ownership of many generic things and use the case to back themselves up. It'll be even more intimidating for small companies to fight back, it's just be poison to the hobby.
azreal13 wrote: Isn't it already established that IP infringement can't cross mediums? So a 3D sculpt of a 2D artwork is not an issue?
Copyright in the United States carries with it the ability to do "derivative works" - which are expressive works based upon another pre-existing and protected work. I would describe your statement as not accurate. This isn't legal advice though.
Neither GW or Blight Wheel are based in the US, so while I still remain unsure as to the accuracy of my statement, I am confident in saying that yours has no bearing in it.
I guess I could have been more specific - my expertise is in the United States, but the concept is in most copyright regimes. You are completely wrong in your statement.
It is important to remember that a derivative work is ipso facto a copy of the root work, i.e. it begins with a copy of the root work and transforms it into a new work that nevertheless contains significant protected expression from the root work.
Like, a translation is a derivative work under US law. The symbols used to convey the meaning of the story are entirely different, but the meaning is exactly the same, or as near as can be done. So the text is technically completely different, but the symbols used are not important, the meaning is the protected expression.
Just keep in mind that the concept of a derivative work does not expand the borders of copyright protection beyond copying.
weeble1000 wrote: The more important question to ask is, "Why?" Why in the Hell does GW give a crap about this?
The schoolyard bully couldn't beat up the little nerdy boy, because he called his big brother.
So the bully searched for another victim with no big brother, to beat him up and feel strong.
You would do the same if you were a miserable GW lawyer hired to defend's GW's claim on arrows and Roman numbers in front of an actual jury
BTW, GW still has to find a US sculptor not related to Blight Wheel, so that they can have a lawsuit in USA
RatBot wrote: I'm merely saying from a strictly "lawful neutral" (to put it in nerdy terms ) standpoint I can actually see this being a potentially legitimate grievance.
Exactly.
This miniature doesn't harm GWand GW themselves were never going to make a Loxatl model (shame, as I've wanted a few since I saw its rules in Mark of the Xenos). But this mini does look like a Loxatl. It's not a passing resemblance either.
They might be though. If this model was allowed to be manufactured unchallenged then if in some unlikely future GW made a Loxatl model then Blightwheel could sue GW because they had a model in the market first.
I imagine this was part of the driver for the Chapterhouse case too.
RatBot wrote: I'm merely saying from a strictly "lawful neutral" (to put it in nerdy terms ) standpoint I can actually see this being a potentially legitimate grievance.
Exactly.
This miniature doesn't harm GWand GW themselves were never going to make a Loxatl model (shame, as I've wanted a few since I saw its rules in Mark of the Xenos). But this mini does look like a Loxatl. It's not a passing resemblance either.
They might be though. If this model was allowed to be manufactured unchallenged then if in some unlikely future GW made a Loxatl model then Blightwheel could sue GW because they had a model in the market first.
I imagine this was part of the driver for the Chapterhouse case too.
And my understanding is, GW's C&D letter notwithstanding, that would still be a possibility if Blight Wheel chose to defend their Mutant Komodo model against GW's putative copy of their 3D sculpture.
weeble1000 wrote: The more important question to ask is, "Why?" Why in the Hell does GW give a crap about this?
The schoolyard bully couldn't beat up the little nerdy boy, because he called his big brother.
So the bully searched for another victim with no big brother, to beat him up and feel strong.
You would do the same if you were a miserable GW lawyer hired to defend's GW's claim on arrows and Roman numbers in front of an actual jury
This is not a Foley and Lardner deal. This is in house GW legal. This is some mook hired to trawl the internets for minimum wage. At best, this is Gillian Stevenson, and that is not saying much.
Flashman wrote: I don't see it myself. Similar perhaps, but not similar enough IMHO.
Does GW own the rights to space lizards now?
Read the letter. Same stance, same hands, same gun under the chest, same bandolier of bullets, same head implant. One or two would be meh, whatever, but all of them?
Same stance? Nope - going by the curve of the spine, position of the hands/paws and the claw marks on the background texture, the Lox is meant to be coming off a wall onto the floor. The Mutant Komodo Dragon (hereafter referred to as MKD) is moving flat along the floor. In addition, the Lox's front limbs have the feet (for want of a better term) fairly close together, and on roughly the same plane - the MKD is reaching out with one limb whilst balanced on the other. The back legs are also different, even if we ignore the fact that the ones on the art are attached to a wall - the opposite leg is stretched back on the artwork compared to the model, and not to such a great extent.
Same hands? Nope - not unless three "fingers" (MKD) is the same as four (Lox).
Same gun under the chest? Can't tell clearly enough from the images posted in this thread, so I won't comment.
Bandolier of chunky bullets? I'll give you that one, even if it does seem a touch vague as an element to be protected (to this layman)
Same head implant? See comment regarding gun under the chest - there seems to be something there, but it isn't clear enough in these images to give comment on.
RatBot wrote: I'm merely saying from a strictly "lawful neutral" (to put it in nerdy terms ) standpoint I can actually see this being a potentially legitimate grievance.
Exactly.
This miniature doesn't harm GWand GW themselves were never going to make a Loxatl model (shame, as I've wanted a few since I saw its rules in Mark of the Xenos). But this mini does look like a Loxatl. It's not a passing resemblance either.
They might be though. If this model was allowed to be manufactured unchallenged then if in some unlikely future GW made a Loxatl model then Blightwheel could sue GW because they had a model in the market first.
I imagine this was part of the driver for the Chapterhouse case too.
That's not how copyright works. You are thinking about trademarks. In copyright, who markets first has no bearing on anything. Copyright is inherent, and exists from the moment the work is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." All that matters in copyright (baring things like ownership and such) is access and copying. If Gw did release a loxatl miniature, and for some insane reason Blight Wheel sued for copyright infringement, in the US, GW would be able to make an affirmative defense of unclean hands, equitable estoppel, or something similar, arguing that the asserted work is a copy of their own, previously extant artwork.
There is virtually no need to sue when it comes to copyright infringement. If you do not assert rights, and that is very different from suing or sending a C&D, a later defendant may be able to argue that there was an implied license, selective enforcement, or something similar. But that is much, much different from the impetus to maintain a trademark.
The only thing you need to say in the above-described situation is that you have a good faith basis to believe that the previous work is not a copy, but that the now accused work is.
Is the time frame standard in these type of C&D letters ? 7 Days doesnt seem to be a reasonable time to be able to provide details of all profits ( should there be any ) or much time to seek legal representation or advice on how to respond to the letter or to arrange many of the other ' demands '
Is the time frame standard in these type of C&D letters ? 7 Days doesnt seem to be a reasonable time to be able to provide details of all profits ( should there be any ) or much time to seek legal representation or advice on how to respond to the letter or to arrange many of the other ' demands '
The requesting profits bit is offensive. Those would be discoverable documents if GW followed up this threat to pursue legal action, but they are entirely private. You don't just fork over that stuff on request. The letter encourages the incorrect assumption that providing such documents is normal, effectively taking advantage of the author's presumably relative sophistication to mislead the recipient. Shenanigans.
"Say, do me a favor and help me build my lawsuit against you before you have formal access to my documents. Don't worry guy, this is how these things go. You'll be fine. Play ball with us and we won't destroy you."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Having said that, that space lizard by some random guy is pretty close to that art that Ive never seen in the book Ive never heard of. Seems kind of strange that a nobody can attract attention of GWs (fine)lawyers.
First, talk to a lawyer. Even if they fully intend on complying with GW - they still will want to have a lawyer go ahead and write up a quick letter saying something along the lines of "By complying with your request we are not acknowledging any wrong doing on our part..." You know, the types of things that you always have a good laugh about when you here about some payout by a celebrity to their "massage therapist".
Find out what jurisdiction it would be fought out in - should anything happen. Luckily everything should be centered around the UK - so no flying a couple thousand miles to deal with it...but still, just make sure.
Second, the fight on this would be a more difficult one - as the concept is somewhat more unique. Under copyright laws, there is a substantial amount which may fall under protection by GW. There is also a fair amount which is pretty generic (what they describe as an ammo belt with separate bullets is a pretty standard bandolier, the "shield" on the back corresponds to a shield on the front...with mounted gun...and for anyone actually examining it would likely realize that that is the logical manner that lizards would where armor if they did where armor). Other things are a bit more vague. The face is, to me, a dead ringer. Hands are different (specifically the lack of a "dew claw"), and although the feet are similar - lizard feet are nothing special or unique. The circular "head implant" on the head...would be what biologists often refer to as an ear on a real lizard - they have exposed tympanic membranes which are generally circular and behind the ear. I can't see clearly on the model if the modeled the "jack" between the ear and the eye as shown on the illustration. The base of the tail shares a pair of spines as well. Still, it wouldn't be each one of those points - but rather all of them put together. It is somewhat more unique than other GW concepts.
Next, you need to track down who did the original sketch and where they worked. The UK has that interesting design issue to deal with - and if the original sketch was actually done by a member of the "Design Studio" as opposed to a Black Library artist - a claim could be made that the purpose of the original sketch was not for use in the Black Library book rather instead that it was meant for use as a design document for miniature development within the design studio. A drawing done specifically for the book is treated differently in the UK than a drawing that happened to end up in the book. I don't think the drawing itself is attributed - and the Sabbat World campaign book was 2005 IIRC. Several of the artists were studio artists, and several were Black Library artists (then of course their is the whole issue of whether or not GW bothered to get assignments from their freelance artists who do work for Black Library...).
If it isn't a design though - then you have to address it like a copyright. GW would need to prove you copied them (having access to the original, and then demonstrating similarities is normally enough). The common elements are subtracted. A determination would then be made to figure out if it is or isn't a copy or derivative work (transformation from 2D to 3D is not normally significant enough of a transformation to be outside copyright laws on its own). The easiest way to deal with GW would be to look for a prior example of the same idea which they stole from (dirty hands principle...plus their work becomes a derivative of the original and they no longer have standing to sue). I don't have access to my library right now, but I would look at things like Alternity, Rifts, Aliens Unlimited, Traveler and GURPS books to start with. All very prolific in terms of art and number of aliens/weird tech creatures they introduced.
nkelsch wrote: WotC did almost the exact same thing to a KS I backed for making 'not' versions of some of their literary characters. They simply didn't want someone to make miniatures which were clearly their character in every way shape and form except for name. WotC doesn't want to make a mini, but it is still their character, and it dilutes their control for being able to use it however they want.
The KS changed the model design and colorschemes to be a unique Darkling ranger instead of "Not-Drizzt Do'Urden" and Aged wizard instead of "Not-Elminster"
WotC was in the right regardless if they make the Mini or not and the company responded reasonably because they wer clearly designing something off someone else's IP. And simple changes in design made both parties happy and customers still get what they want.
This idea that anyone can just make a model of anyone else's character and that is 'free game' isn't reality and GW isn't the only one who sends out C&D letters to mini makers.
Those were trademark issues - which are significantly different and carry different requirements under the law. The KS actually called them "Not-Iconic Character Name" - once the name was removed...WotC didn't care one bit at all.
Is the time frame standard in these type of C&D letters ? 7 Days doesnt seem to be a reasonable time to be able to provide details of all profits ( should there be any ) or much time to seek legal representation or advice on how to respond to the letter or to arrange many of the other ' demands '
The requesting profits bit is offensive. Those would be discoverable documents if GW followed up this threat to pursue legal action, but they are entirely private. You don't just fork over that stuff on request. The letter encourages the incorrect assumption that providing such documents is normal, effectively taking advantage of the author's presumably relative sophistication to mislead the recipient. Shenanigans.
"Say, do me a favor and help me build my lawsuit against you before you have formal access to my documents. Don't worry guy, this is how these things go. You'll be fine. Play ball with us and we won't destroy you."
Shenanigans
The bigger issue is that it is a timed request, and based on the "Ok we found this in our spam box " quote - they didn't get a letter...they got an email. Legal correspondence of this variety are always handled with physical (generally delivery confirmation requested) letters. Quite often the short period of time and the threat of further legal action will be a violation of legal procedures on its own...but that is something a lawyer would be able to address - as I am not familiar enough with specific requirements in that regard under UK law.
nkelsch wrote: WotC did almost the exact same thing to a KS I backed for making 'not' versions of some of their literary characters. They simply didn't want someone to make miniatures which were clearly their character in every way shape and form except for name. WotC doesn't want to make a mini, but it is still their character, and it dilutes their control for being able to use it however they want.
The KS changed the model design and colorschemes to be a unique Darkling ranger instead of "Not-Drizzt Do'Urden" and Aged wizard instead of "Not-Elminster"
WotC was in the right regardless if they make the Mini or not and the company responded reasonably because they wer clearly designing something off someone else's IP. And simple changes in design made both parties happy and customers still get what they want.
This idea that anyone can just make a model of anyone else's character and that is 'free game' isn't reality and GW isn't the only one who sends out C&D letters to mini makers.
Those were trademark issues - which are significantly different and carry different requirements under the law. The KS actually called them "Not-Iconic Character Name" - once the name was removed...WotC didn't care one bit at all.
They actually never called them "not-Trademark". They called them generic things, but they had clear features and colorschemes which uniquely represented specific WOTC characters. Hell, I thought they were 'Not-Gandalf' and 'Not-WorldOfWarcraft-Darkelf' until the C&D.
They had to change the design of the model to remove swords and scrolls which looked like established WotC art. They also had to kill 4 Monsters which looked too much like iconic D&D monsters. Only 2 of which survived a redesign.
So for a total of 6 offending models, 2 got redesigned, 2 got heavily modified and 2 were killed outright. None of which were using any trademakrs or WotC names, simply similarity to the imagery in WotC books. I don't see that it was a trademark issue and seems to be super similar to this situation.
nkelsch wrote: They actually never called them "not-Trademark". They called them generic things, but they had clear features and colorschemes which uniquely represented specific WOTC characters. Hell, I thought they were 'Not-Gandalf' and 'Not-WorldOfWarcraft-Darkelf' until the C&D.
They had to change the design of the model to remove swords and scrolls which looked like established WotC art. They also had to kill 4 Monsters which looked too much like iconic D&D monsters. Only 2 of which survived a redesign.
So for a total of 6 offending models, 2 got redesigned, 2 got heavily modified and 2 were killed outright. None of which were using any trademakrs or WotC names, simply similarity to the imagery in WotC books. I don't see that it was a trademark issue and seems to be super similar to this situation.
Pretty sure either someone at Impact - or one of the people who were pushing hard for the campaign actually did. In any case, the underlying factor is in fact the same. WotC was not concerned with copyright issues - rather Trademark issues. Elminster has long been an iconic character which was used by TSR and now WotC to sell D&D products in the Forgotten Realms setting as well as a stand alone character in several books. The artwork which was used to create the chibi caricature was actually the same artwork that was used to represent Elminster on the cover of books like "The Forgotten Realms Atlas". The same applied in fact to Drizzt, who was also used to sell products in the Forgotten Realms setting as well as stand alone character in several books. When a character moves from just a drawing or a throw away in a book - to something which is core to a company to sell products, it moves from primarily copyright protection to primarily trademark protection. WotC would not have gotten upset about an elf using two scimitars (take a look at any fantasy miniature company and you will find dozens of not-Drizzt) or an old man with a staff, pointy hat and a pipe - their issues were with the trademarks. I would have to double check the others that got changed in the Chibi Dungeon Adventurers KS - but those likely also fell into the realm of trademarked as opposed to copyrights.
When WotC rolled out their d20 and OGL concepts - they acknowledged that their IP was rather limited with regards to fantasy and science fiction. They portioned off a few unique concepts which were called out in the SRD that were primarily trademarks and opened everything else up. It is pretty easy to do a whole lot of stuff with D&D related materials and not get WotC on your back. They encourage it in fact.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Did Blight Wheel move? I seem to recall them being Polish originally, but now their flag is showing as Monaco.
Their blog mentions translating the letter into French...not sure where they are actually at. I think the big thing is that the figures were for Salute in the UK - which would allow GW to go after them under UK law in UK courts.
nkelsch wrote: They actually never called them "not-Trademark". They called them generic things, but they had clear features and colorschemes which uniquely represented specific WOTC characters. Hell, I thought they were 'Not-Gandalf' and 'Not-WorldOfWarcraft-Darkelf' until the C&D.
They had to change the design of the model to remove swords and scrolls which looked like established WotC art. They also had to kill 4 Monsters which looked too much like iconic D&D monsters. Only 2 of which survived a redesign.
So for a total of 6 offending models, 2 got redesigned, 2 got heavily modified and 2 were killed outright. None of which were using any trademakrs or WotC names, simply similarity to the imagery in WotC books. I don't see that it was a trademark issue and seems to be super similar to this situation.
Pretty sure either someone at Impact - or one of the people who were pushing hard for the campaign actually did. In any case, the underlying factor is in fact the same. WotC was not concerned with copyright issues - rather Trademark issues. Elminster has long been an iconic character which was used by TSR and now WotC to sell D&D products in the Forgotten Realms setting as well as a stand alone character in several books. The artwork which was used to create the chibi caricature was actually the same artwork that was used to represent Elminster on the cover of books like "The Forgotten Realms Atlas". The same applied in fact to Drizzt, who was also used to sell products in the Forgotten Realms setting as well as stand alone character in several books. When a character moves from just a drawing or a throw away in a book - to something which is core to a company to sell products, it moves from primarily copyright protection to primarily trademark protection. WotC would not have gotten upset about an elf using two scimitars (take a look at any fantasy miniature company and you will find dozens of not-Drizzt) or an old man with a staff, pointy hat and a pipe - their issues were with the trademarks. I would have to double check the others that got changed in the Chibi Dungeon Adventurers KS - but those likely also fell into the realm of trademarked as opposed to copyrights.
When WotC rolled out their d20 and OGL concepts - they acknowledged that their IP was rather limited with regards to fantasy and science fiction. They portioned off a few unique concepts which were called out in the SRD that were primarily trademarks and opened everything else up. It is pretty easy to do a whole lot of stuff with D&D related materials and not get WotC on your back. They encourage it in fact.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Did Blight Wheel move? I seem to recall them being Polish originally, but now their flag is showing as Monaco.
Their blog mentions translating the letter into French...not sure where they are actually at. I think the big thing is that the figures were for Salute in the UK - which would allow GW to go after them under UK law in UK courts.
I hope they do, and I hope Blight Wheel get a solid team of lawyers and give GW's legal team just as much of a showing up as Chapterhouse have in the US, because the only thing that's ever going to stop GW's relentless bullying is a judgement against them in the UK(not 100% on this, but wouldn't a judgement against them be considered precedent anywhere in the EU, regardless of which EU country it's established in?).
Then make four or five more sculpts with dual guns, chain guns, rockets, cannons, bfg's, bfg mark 2's, and one holding a kitty, or lovingly stroking a puppy.
The sculpt looks nothing like that artwork, and GW needs to worry more about it's own house then running around trying to convince itself it is the be all and end all with gaming.
azreal13 wrote: Isn't it already established that IP infringement can't cross mediums? So a 3D sculpt of a 2D artwork is not an issue?
No. If that was true, why would anyone ever produce licensed films or merchandise, when you could just make it without giving the creator anything?
For example, here's a sculpture by Jeff Koons that was found to infringe the IP of a photographer.
Watch out for the Rogers v Koons case. It was mainly a case of fair use as there was rare direct evidence of copying, and what amounted to a virtual admission of copying by the defendant. Also, the sculpture attempted to replicate the photograph in all details in which it was possible, so viewing the sculpture was essentially viewing the same people at the same angle as the photograph was taken.
When you are talking about what makes a photograph 'art', framing, staging, lighting, focus, basically all of the elements that con be manipulated potentially create protected expression. The subject itself is often not protectable. Koons replicated, or sought to replicate, those types of details. It was not that the people in the sculpture looked the same, but that the sculpture replicated the framing, positioning of the subjects, and so forth. In fact, the sculpture barely looked like a sculpture. So again, in copyright cases one is dealing with very fact dependent issues.
The case was decided on summary judgment and is a decision that remains hotly debated today.
Further, the Koons case has been cited by Plaintiff counsel in the GW v CHS case, to not terribly significant impact. A far more apt case would be FASA v Playmate.
I doubt GW found this miniature by trolling the internet. Most likely a GW fan alerted them to its existence. Kind of silly to produce that miniature unless they thought it was so obscure it would fly under the radar of GW.
I have to wonder why they didnt do something like but the gun on the back of the lizard instead of the belly.
Grot 6 wrote: Blight Wheel needs to tell them to get stuffed.
Then make four or five more sculpts with dual guns, chain guns, rockets, cannons, bfg's, bfg mark 2's, and one holding a kitty, or lovingly stroking a puppy.
The sculpt looks nothing like that artwork, and GW needs to worry more about it's own house then running around trying to convince itself it is the be all and end all with gaming.
What? That sculpt looks exactly like the artwork - exactly.
On a more serious note. I totally understand why GW is going after these guys. Its just too similar, regardless of the legal ramifications.
That said, wouldn't GW's budget be better spent putting out a competing resin model? So instead of competing they are just shutting it down? who wins here?
For anybody who is unsure how this might turn out.
Again, blindly referencing a case does not say much.
More so because it wouldn't be dealt with under US law - rather through courts in the UK or the home country of Blight Wheel (Poland, France, Monaco...where ever that might be).
JWhex wrote: I doubt GW found this miniature by trolling the internet. Most likely a GW fan alerted them to its existence. Kind of silly to produce that miniature unless they thought it was so obscure it would fly under the radar of GW.
I have to wonder why they didnt do something like but the gun on the back of the lizard instead of the belly.
GW employees as well will troll the interwebs.
And the GW lap Lackeys will snoop out the heresy and then call to their masters and show them the vile deeds of the common folk.
And the GW master will raise his royal briefcase (full of money of course) and decree, "This is heresy! We can not have someone else make better things than we can! Call forth the legal dogs of writ and smite these heathens back to where we belong! We are the Masters of the H-H-H-obby"!
For anybody who is unsure how this might turn out.
Again, blindly referencing a case does not say much.
More so because it wouldn't be dealt with under US law - rather through courts in the UK or the home country of Blight Wheel (Poland, France, Monaco...where ever that might be).
Wouldn't GW be hosed in the UK then since case law currently supports no copyright for toys?
For anybody who is unsure how this might turn out.
Again, blindly referencing a case does not say much.
More so because it wouldn't be dealt with under US law - rather through courts in the UK or the home country of Blight Wheel (Poland, France, Monaco...where ever that might be).
Wouldn't GW be hosed in the UK then since case law currently supports no copyright for toys?
Assuming that's true, I suspect these wouldn't fit the legal description of toys.
For anybody who is unsure how this might turn out.
Again, blindly referencing a case does not say much.
More so because it wouldn't be dealt with under US law - rather through courts in the UK or the home country of Blight Wheel (Poland, France, Monaco...where ever that might be).
Wouldn't GW be hosed in the UK then since case law currently supports no copyright for toys?
Assuming that's true, I suspect these wouldn't fit the legal description of toys.
It is true (more or less - See LucasFilm vs Ainsworth) - but it might not apply, and might not apply fully quite yet if it did apply.
If the original artwork was done by a member of GW proper (as opposed to Black Library or a Black Library freelancer) - a strong case could be made that the original would be a design document as opposed to artwork. If it was done for the Black Library book specifically by a freelance artist AND they managed to actually secure the proper assignment of rights by that artist...then the copyright issues would be in play.
If it were done by a member of the design team though, GW would still have a design right - something that is different than a copyright. Design rights provide for an term of 10 years after the first article using the design is marketed or 15 years after the design is created. Since GW never got around to actually doing a miniature...that would mean 15 years after the creation date. Since the book was published in 2005, chances are pretty good the picture was created in 2004 or earlier...which would put us at around 9 years or more into that term. However, during the last 5 years of the term of a design right - owners of the design must issue License of Rights. They can not choose not to issue the license and the terms must be reasonable. If they are not reasonable, Her Majesty's Bureaucrats over at the IPO get involved and force terms on the right holder.
If the original artwork was done by a member of GW proper (as opposed to Black Library or a Black Library freelancer) - a strong case could be made that the original would be a design document as opposed to artwork. If it was done for the Black Library book specifically by a freelance artist AND they managed to actually secure the proper assignment of rights by that artist...then the copyright issues would be in play.
If it were done by a member of the design team though, GW would still have a design right - something that is different than a copyright. Design rights provide for an term of 10 years after the first article using the design is marketed or 15 years after the design is created. Since GW never got around to actually doing a miniature...that would mean 15 years after the creation date. Since the book was published in 2005, chances are pretty good the picture was created in 2004 or earlier...which would put us at around 9 years or more into that term. However, during the last 5 years of the term of a design right - owners of the design must issue License of Rights. They can not choose not to issue the license and the terms must be reasonable. If they are not reasonable, Her Majesty's Bureaucrats over at the IPO get involved and force terms on the right holder.
From what I can tell, the Loxatl might have been a commissioned sketch by either Dave Kendall or Wayne Richardson. They're the only two who worked on both "The Inquisition" and "The Sabbat Worlds Crusade", where the Loxatl artwork appears.
wowsmash wrote: but it doesnt even sound like their making money on the model. it sounds like its just a freebee?
Blight Wheel has a history of doing this kind of thing. Look into their "Grant's Spectres" model.
Rather generic looking sci-fi soldiers?
Not seeing anything "generic sci-fi soldiers" in regards to that model. It looks more like a postapocalypse model, if I were to ignore everything I know about Gaunt's Ghosts.
As it stands that model is screaming "Gaunt's Ghosts" to me.
Admittedly I have a bit of a biased view as I was did read the thread when Blight Wheels out and out named the model as "Grant's Spectre Scout" and released it alongside a "Mantis Tank"(the Blood Pact "Stalk Tanks" are referred to as "mantis-like" in several of the Gaunt's Ghosts novels)...and then further showcased the rest of their stuff for their Grant's Spectres line.
Edit: That's not saying "SHUT THEM DOWN! CURSE YOU BLIGHT WHEEL!", etc. Just saying. Blight Wheel has been very cheeky about the fact that they're mining Black Library's artwork.
I'm very intrigued by the timing of this whole thing though. Blight Wheel has been operating for awhile, why did they get noticed now?
BRB I'm gonna go publish a stick figure in a random book and then sue anyone who makes 3d stick figures.
That is what is going on here, just with more detail.
Also, jurisdiction makes a MASSIVE difference. In the UK these items are classified as design rights, which have insanely limited lifespans as seen in the Lucasfilm stormtrooper suit.
Further, the country in which BWM operates may not give a flying feth about UK design right laws.
I swear I'm just going to start up a 1:1 ripoff company and base it in China just to screw with GW. Oh wait, those exist, and while they may not be mainstream, they appear to do healthy volumes of business and keep rather up to date with new releases.
GW's reach is not global. They do not have some divine right to every idea they've ever passed off as their own.
Not seeing anything "generic sci-fi soldiers" in regards to that model. It looks more like a postapocalypse model, if I were to ignore everything I know about Gaunt's Ghosts.
As it stands that model is screaming "Gaunt's Ghosts" to me.
I'm very intrigued by the timing of this whole thing though. Blight Wheel has been operating for awhile, why did they get noticed now?
I tend to stuff post-apoc into sci-fi, in terms of general categorization. The rest of the line is less rough looking than she is (regular chests and armored chests, some bionic bits....).
A lot of GW customers see GW products when they see common tropes. She isn't much different than a dozen other characters in a dozen other books, movies and comics. The lasgun design is comparable to GWs, but it is also comparable to the laser rifles which were used by Grenadier in their Future Warriors line and a few others as well. Not to mention one of the Sega light guns used in arcade games and one laser tag rifle that slips my mind right now...though oversized a good bit. Even as it applies directly to Gaunt's Ghosts, the concept is generic and old - you can find it repeated over and over again since WWII movies and throughout various other fiction mediums since (likely even older than that as well).
BTW - when you evaluate for infringement, you generally need to forget everything you know about the property. Most laws are written to evaluate each item on a case by case basis from the perspective of a common person. When an average guy off the street sees something - what does he think. Aficionados tend to know specific details and things which would not be applicable (both in support of or against a claim of infringement).
As far as why now...I would guess Salute. Not sure if they had gone in the past - but that demonstrates that they are doing business in the UK and would be subject to UK laws. Even if the suit is flimsy, if they are significantly outside of the UK (and apparently they are outside the UK...and not English speaking natives) they will have additional difficulty in defending themselves. The intricacies of the EU trade laws makes me think that if GW were to win a case against them in the UK (even by default...say if they couldn't afford to hire an attorney or show up to the various trial parts) then that win in the UK would effectively shut them down in their home country as well and prevent them from doing business.
Not seeing anything "generic sci-fi soldiers" in regards to that model. It looks more like a postapocalypse model, if I were to ignore everything I know about Gaunt's Ghosts.
As it stands that model is screaming "Gaunt's Ghosts" to me.
I'm very intrigued by the timing of this whole thing though. Blight Wheel has been operating for awhile, why did they get noticed now?
I tend to stuff post-apoc into sci-fi, in terms of general categorization. The rest of the line is less rough looking than she is (regular chests and armored chests, some bionic bits....).
Fair enough.
A lot of GW customers see GW products when they see common tropes. She isn't much different than a dozen other characters in a dozen other books, movies and comics. The lasgun design is comparable to GWs, but it is also comparable to the laser rifles which were used by Grenadier in their Future Warriors line and a few others as well. Not to mention one of the Sega light guns used in arcade games and one laser tag rifle that slips my mind right now...though oversized a good bit. Even as it applies directly to Gaunt's Ghosts, the concept is generic and old - you can find it repeated over and over again since WWII movies and throughout various other fiction mediums since (likely even older than that as well).
I wouldn't really call the "wooden stocked high tech rifle" design a common trope, personally. If you look at the green you can see where they attempted to add texturing ala wood grain to the stock.
Like I said though: I'm biased in this situation and I know I'm biased. I posted in the very thread where Blight Wheel Miniatures showcased the model and flatout called it "Grant's Spectres". This isn't really an instance though where it's "a GW customer sees GW product where there's a common trope". BWM pretty much stated that it is meant to be representative of Tona Criid, a sergeant of Gaunt's Ghosts.
As far as why now...I would guess Salute. Not sure if they had gone in the past - but that demonstrates that they are doing business in the UK and would be subject to UK laws. Even if the suit is flimsy, if they are significantly outside of the UK (and apparently they are outside the UK...and not English speaking natives) they will have additional difficulty in defending themselves. The intricacies of the EU trade laws makes me think that if GW were to win a case against them in the UK (even by default...say if they couldn't afford to hire an attorney or show up to the various trial parts) then that win in the UK would effectively shut them down in their home country as well and prevent them from doing business.
BWM pretty much stated that it is meant to be representative of Tona Criid, a sergeant of Gaunt's Ghosts.
They may very well have - but that doesn't make GW's concept protectable.
Regarding the wood stocked, high tech rifle. Common - especially out of Japan...and Star Wars too if my memory is correct (things like the T-21 and DLT-19 both had wooden stocks on them).
The more important question to ask is, "Why?" Why in the Hell does GW give a crap about this? How does it benefit GW, in the long run, to assert its rights in this instance?
Perhaps looking for an easy win to assuage their bruised egos after the drubbing they are taking in the Chapterhouse case?
The more important question to ask is, "Why?" Why in the Hell does GW give a crap about this? How does it benefit GW, in the long run, to assert its rights in this instance?
Perhaps looking for an easy win to assuage their bruised egos after the drubbing they are taking in the Chapterhouse case?
T
But the win is against no one for virtually nothing. There's no trademark issue, therefore no legal obligation to GW to take action(going off US law for that, no clue how EU works).
There's no lost profit to sue for, there's no damages really.
At the same time, I don't think a single product like that is worth defending against GW. I really can't wait for the company to topple or be bought out. I really doubt it could get much worse on the business side.
Remember when GW cared more about hobby than business? Pretty sure that's how they ended up with a business at all.
Like I said though: I'm biased in this situation and I know I'm biased. I posted in the very thread where Blight Wheel Miniatures showcased the model and flatout called it "Grant's Spectres". This isn't really an instance though where it's "a GW customer sees GW product where there's a common trope". BWM pretty much stated that it is meant to be representative of Tona Criid, a sergeant of Gaunt's Ghosts.
This is the difference between attaching oneself to the underbelly of a shark and going unnoticed and swimming near the shark's mouth. You want to make a living off other people's properties? Let your customers connect the dots themselves.
This lacks the moral highround of Spots which legitimately had nothing to do with GW properties. While you can criticize GW for 'why bother', they have the right to piss away as much money as they wish defending what they feel they have the right to defend. Other companies do the exact same thing every day in the same situation and don't catch as nearly as much flack for it. If a company is flat out bragging in a public forum about making direct copies of your properties, referencing your art and characters by name... seems legitimate to attempt to defend it. I am not sure they need to worry about the 'goodwill' of a community who wants to see GW legitimately harmed in every way possible. This doesn't spark any outrage to me like the Spots incident.
Let customers connect the dots themselves and stay silent about your possible homages to other properties... I thought people had figured that one out already. Worldwar II orks VS Knights in space armor VS post apocalyptic 'mad mutants' VS Fat rotting armor men.
Wow, not only is it a complete Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, it's a "sexy" Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff. I hope these guys get shut down for sure.
Yeah, those evil buggers, daring to use an unprotectable concept that itself is based on other sci-fantasy tropes in order to create miniatures that the supposed-"owner" of aforementioned derivative concept has no intention of making or selling. They should be whipped through the streets like animals!
Tyranids are an Aliens knockoff, Catachans are a knockoff, just about every part of GW's IP started out or even remains today a total knockoff of someone else's work. That doesn't make the amalgamated universe those knockoffs have come together to create any less cool or interesting, but it does pretty thoroughly undermine any claim by either GW or the part of their fanbase which eschews critical thinking that anyone who draws inspiration -even blatant inspiration- from their products is some kind of parasite leeching profits from poor, defenceless GW.
I thought that these where being given away free as a promotional item? If so is there a case to answer? BW will make a loss on these so no profits to recover. Also doesn't the human rights act protect the right to dispose of goods or chattels as the owner see's fit? Can I not give away any models I have sculpted/converted to look like another GW product? If it is the case that BW are indeed not selling the miniature but giving it away then I think it poses more questions to consider.
RatBot wrote: GW certainly isn't a bastion of originality, by any stretch, but this miniature is at the very least in extremely sketchy territory.
I've never seen the GW creature before, it must be a fairly obscure publication and it's certainly not one of their main races.
It looks like a lizard with a bullet belt to me. GW is getting desperate.
All those bits in your first line is true, but that doesn't mean it's a coincidence. I'd like better, more detailed pictures of the miniature, but it does look like the belt and the gun are identical to the ones in the concept art.
I think it's pretty well known that I have very little love for GW and their shenanigans, but with this one I'm not so sure that GW is completely in the wrong. With that said, if GW never planned on producing a model for this piece of art, then it seems a tad moot; it's not like GW's going to be losing any sales here.
Clearer pictures and close-ups would be nice.
I'm not sure what's in it for GW to pursue this. They are claiming ownership of a lizard with some bits on it. Sure, it does, now that I look closely, bare resemblance to their art, but what does that mean? In all other means it's just a generic lizard with weapons and I think it's been established that having art of something doesn't mean you own the 3D representation of it.
It makes me sad, GW are just pathetic. They stand to gain nothing from this, the model is a limited give away with purchases over a certain amount, so it's not being 'sold' for anything as such. And it's a model of something they are almost certainly never going to make, and it's of something that doesn't stray onto the miniatures of any of their main ranges from which they do make money. Their IP is under no threat from this, most people probably won't spot the similarity to any prior art. All GW are achieving is looking like complete dicks yet again. Are they just scratching around to find reason to create ill-will against them?
They want the mould with rights, the miniatures and any profits* made from it. Essentially they want ownership of the sculpt to use it themselves**.
*Which is especially stupid as it's a free promo model.
**Except it's in real resin, so they'd need to redesign it for finecast.
In some previous cases where companies have surrendered moulds, perhaps because a licence has ended, they've smashed them. That way they prove that they haven't been passed on for future production by anyone else (which is important to the copyright holder), but their new owners can't have free use of them.
They can just run the mould til it wears out then chop it up and send to GW. If its a one off promo who cares about giving them the rights, sign them over. Give away all the minis at salute then send a signed statement saying you no longer posses any. As for profits feel free to pass the costs incurred in giving it away onto GW.
If the model was being sold then this would have different implications but if its given away then just screw 'em.
Yodhrin wrote: That doesn't make the amalgamated universe those knockoffs have come together to create any less cool or interesting, but it does pretty thoroughly undermine any claim by either GW or the part of their fanbase which eschews critical thinking that anyone who draws inspiration -even blatant inspiration- from their products is some kind of parasite leeching profits from poor, defenceless GW.
Er, except that this GW knockoff miniature directly competes with actual GW products, so anyone who buys it is potentially not spending money on the actual GW miniatures that it's ripping off? That seems pretty darn close to "leeching profits" to me.
Not seeing anything "generic sci-fi soldiers" in regards to that model. It looks more like a postapocalypse model, if I were to ignore everything I know about Gaunt's Ghosts.
As it stands that model is screaming "Gaunt's Ghosts" to me.
It just says "Generic post apoc warrior" to me. I've not read Gaunts Ghosts.
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: @kingsley could you provide a link to a loxatl miniature on the GW web store please? Thanks x
The comment I was replying to pertained to the Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, not the loxatl knockoff. I think the loxatl model is a ripoff that should be quashed but the Gaunt's Ghosts one seems like a much more clear-cut case.
Yodhrin wrote: That doesn't make the amalgamated universe those knockoffs have come together to create any less cool or interesting, but it does pretty thoroughly undermine any claim by either GW or the part of their fanbase which eschews critical thinking that anyone who draws inspiration -even blatant inspiration- from their products is some kind of parasite leeching profits from poor, defenceless GW.
Er, except that this GW knockoff miniature directly competes with actual GW products, so anyone who buys it is potentially not spending money on the actual GW miniatures that it's ripping off? That seems pretty darn close to "leeching profits" to me.
You go girl! Don't let things like the fact that not a single word in that entire sentence is remotely true to stand in your way to white knight GW!
This isn't a GW "knock off miniature" because GW has never produced a loxatl miniature, they have a drawing of one.
No one is going to buy it, because it is intended as a limited production free give away.
There are no actual GW miniature that a potential customer might wan't to buy instead so GW can't possibly loose any profits over this.
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: @kingsley could you provide a link to a loxatl miniature on the GW web store please? Thanks x
The comment I was replying to pertained to the Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, not the loxatl knockoff. I think the loxatl model is a ripoff that should be quashed but the Gaunt's Ghosts one seems like a much more clear-cut case.
Please show us all the Gaunts Ghost GW miniature that that Blight Wheel miniature is supposed to be copying.
PhantomViper wrote: You go girl! Don't let things like the fact that not a single word in that entire sentence is remotely true to stand in your way to white knight GW!
This isn't a GW "knock off miniature" because GW has never produced a loxatl miniature, they have a drawing of one.
No one is going to buy it, because it is intended as a limited production free give away.
There are no actual GW miniature that a potential customer might wan't to buy instead so GW can't possibly loose any profits over this.
Again, the comment was in reply to someone talking about the Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, which competes directly with GW's official Gaunt's Ghosts miniatures.
Not seeing anything "generic sci-fi soldiers" in regards to that model. It looks more like a postapocalypse model, if I were to ignore everything I know about Gaunt's Ghosts.
As it stands that model is screaming "Gaunt's Ghosts" to me.
It just says "Generic post apoc warrior" to me. I've not read Gaunts Ghosts.
If anything, I thought Fremen first.
Aren't Gaunt's Ghosts supposed to be wearing Flak Armour? And if that is supposed to be a representation of Criid, what's with the Mad Max knee pad? And where is the Ghost beret?
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: @kingsley could you provide a link to a loxatl miniature on the GW web store please? Thanks x
The comment I was replying to pertained to the Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, not the loxatl knockoff. I think the loxatl model is a ripoff that should be quashed but the Gaunt's Ghosts one seems like a much more clear-cut case.
Please show us all the Gaunts Ghost GW miniature that that Blight Wheel miniature is supposed to be copying.
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: @kingsley could you provide a link to a loxatl miniature on the GW web store please? Thanks x
The comment I was replying to pertained to the Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, not the loxatl knockoff. I think the loxatl model is a ripoff that should be quashed but the Gaunt's Ghosts one seems like a much more clear-cut case.
Please show us all the Gaunts Ghost GW miniature that that Blight Wheel miniature is supposed to be copying.
Your wish is my command:
Spoiler:
There is not a single miniature in that lot that Blighted Wheel's one could classify as a copy of.
Copyright means right to COPY, doesn't mean right to develop-any-type-of-miniature-that-passes-as-a-resemblance-of.
PhantomViper wrote: There is not a single miniature in that lot that Blighted Wheel's one could classify as a copy of.
Copyright means right to COPY, doesn't mean right to develop-any-type-of-miniature-that-passes-as-a-resemblance-of.
Welcome to my ignore list. Backing down when you're wrong is okay, dude, nobody's going to judge you.
Except that I'm not wrong, you are.
With the type of ignorant statements that you post, if you are going to put on ignore every poster that shows you up, your ignore list must be pretty massive!
PhantomViper wrote: You go girl! Don't let things like the fact that not a single word in that entire sentence is remotely true to stand in your way to white knight GW!
This isn't a GW "knock off miniature" because GW has never produced a loxatl miniature, they have a drawing of one.
No one is going to buy it, because it is intended as a limited production free give away.
There are no actual GW miniature that a potential customer might wan't to buy instead so GW can't possibly loose any profits over this.
Again, the comment was in reply to someone talking about the Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, which competes directly with GW's official Gaunt's Ghosts miniatures.
You mean the official Gaunt's Ghosts models which consist of five specific named characters and one meltagun-toting generic trooper, none of which are female and so cannot possibly be Tona Criid? You're going to have to tie yourself into even more knots than usual to justify the idea that a model with no analogue whatsoever in the range it's supposedly competing against is damaging GW's profits. If anything, companies who fill gaps in the GW range that they obviously have no intention of filling(the Ghosts models have been direct-only and languishing in the "Collectors" section for a long while now) are potentially improvingGW's profits, since people who want a Gaunt's Ghosts army could actually buy one, thus giving them reason to purchase the official GW Ghosts minis.
Even then, you've still singularly and spectacularly failed to demonstrate how it's wrong to "knock off" the concept of generic stealthy sci-fi light infantry, any more than it's wrong for GW to sell an entire race of miniatures obviously and gratuitously ripped off(Tyranids) from another franchise - a franchise the design for which is substantially more unique and original than most of GW's own products.
EDIT: Also, it's pretty blatantly dishonest of you to post that second image considering GW don't sell those four minis any more and haven't for some time now. How exactly are Blight Wheel supposed to be competing against something that isn't sold?
Kingsley wrote: Seems like an obvious case of infringement to me.
No surprise there.
Kingsley may be a lunatic who thinks GW doesn't raise their prices (except in line with inflation) but he's not wrong here. If it walks like a Loxatl, talks like a Loxatl and has several sculpted details that match a Loxatl... then it's a Loxatl. This is just like the Raging Heroes Lammasu. Yes, GW didn't invent the concept of the Lammasu, but RH didn't need to make their head more GW-y than ancient history-y. I like Blight Wheel, and I really want to get some of their minis for my AdMech army, but this is a copy and it takes a seriously deluded Dark Knight not to see that.
As far as his comments on the not-Gaunts Ghosts... the gun looks just like a Lasgun (or the barrel does). The rest could be anything.
Kingsley wrote: Seems like an obvious case of infringement to me.
No surprise there.
Kingsley may be a lunatic who thinks GW doesn't raise their prices (except in line with inflation) but he's not wrong here. If it walks like a Loxatl, talks like a Loxatl and has several sculpted details that match a Loxatl... then it's a Loxatl. This is just like the Raging Heroes Lammasu. Yes, GW didn't invent the concept of the Lammasu, but RH didn't need to make their head more GW-y than ancient history-y. I like Blight Wheel, and I really want to get some of their minis for my AdMech army, but this is a copy and it takes a seriously deluded Dark Knight not to see that.
As far as his comments on the not-Gaunts Ghosts... the gun looks just like a Lasgun (or the barrel does). The rest could be anything.
Everyone (except for Grot 6), has stated that the miniature is indeed a pretty blatant copy of the Loaxtl drawing, what people are disputing is that a 3D representation of a 2D image really constitutes infringement or not (and so the ridicule of the "obvious" statement by Kingsley).
As for the Lammasu I couldn't disagree more, there is no such thing as making a head GW-y (unless they covered the head in skulls ? ), Raging Heroes representation was of a Mesopotamian monster with a pretty markedly Mesopotamian head, GW only "won" that one because they picked on someone that couldn't defend themselves, again...
As far as I can see, GW are pissed off that someone copied a drawing they own.
GW had an idea -- Lizards in Spaaace! With guns!! -- and did a drawing of it.
If this idea embodied in a drawing grants them the right to prevent anyone else in the world from making a model of a space lizard with gun, then they have a good case.
Otherwise you can pick apart all the similarities and say that the lizard is a lizard, the pose is a pose, the bandolier is a bandolier, etc. (this has been done above) and you end up with the point of what exact harm has GW suffered from this?
Yodhrin wrote: You mean the official Gaunt's Ghosts models which consist of five specific named characters and one meltagun-toting generic trooper, none of which are female and so cannot possibly be Tona Criid? You're going to have to tie yourself into even more knots than usual to justify the idea that a model with no analogue whatsoever in the range it's supposedly competing against is damaging GW's profits. If anything, companies who fill gaps in the GW range that they obviously have no intention of filling(the Ghosts models have been direct-only and languishing in the "Collectors" section for a long while now) are potentially improvingGW's profits, since people who want a Gaunt's Ghosts army could actually buy one, thus giving them reason to purchase the official GW Ghosts minis.
Except that there is a female Gaunt's Ghosts model, which I actuallly posted an image of. Further, you don't need to be an exact copy to be a copy. The core elements of the Ghosts are there (camo-cloak, lasgun, Tanith knife), and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.
Yodhrin wrote: Even then, you've still singularly and spectacularly failed to demonstrate how it's wrong to "knock off" the concept of generic stealthy sci-fi light infantry, any more than it's wrong for GW to sell an entire race of miniatures obviously and gratuitously ripped off(Tyranids) from another franchise - a franchise the design for which is substantially more unique and original than most of GW's own products.
We're not talking "generic stealthy sci-fi light infantry." We're talking a concept that is derivative right down to the name. Tyranids at least incorporate multiple influences-- Bugs from Starship Troopers, the Xenomorphs from Aliens, the Predator...
Yodhrin wrote: You mean the official Gaunt's Ghosts models which consist of five specific named characters and one meltagun-toting generic trooper, none of which are female and so cannot possibly be Tona Criid? You're going to have to tie yourself into even more knots than usual to justify the idea that a model with no analogue whatsoever in the range it's supposedly competing against is damaging GW's profits. If anything, companies who fill gaps in the GW range that they obviously have no intention of filling(the Ghosts models have been direct-only and languishing in the "Collectors" section for a long while now) are potentially improvingGW's profits, since people who want a Gaunt's Ghosts army could actually buy one, thus giving them reason to purchase the official GW Ghosts minis.
Except that there is a female Gaunt's Ghosts model, which I actuallly posted an image of. Further, you don't need to be an exact copy to be a copy. The core elements of the Ghosts are there (camo-cloak, lasgun, Tanith knife), and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.
Yodhrin wrote: Even then, you've still singularly and spectacularly failed to demonstrate how it's wrong to "knock off" the concept of generic stealthy sci-fi light infantry, any more than it's wrong for GW to sell an entire race of miniatures obviously and gratuitously ripped off(Tyranids) from another franchise - a franchise the design for which is substantially more unique and original than most of GW's own products.
We're not talking "generic stealthy sci-fi light infantry." We're talking a concept that is derivative right down to the name. Tyranids at least incorporate multiple influences-- Bugs from Starship Troopers, the Xenomorphs from Aliens, the Predator...
So you're just going to ignore the fact that I've already pointed out that GW no longer sell the female Ghost model, and haven't for some time, so it's pretty bleedin' difficult for anyone to compete against it?
And as far as IP law is concerned, you may not need to be "an exact copy" to infringe copyright, but you do need to substantially copy elements which are unique to the concept at hand, or which are unique when taken as a whole. How many of these concepts are unique, alone or together; female soldier, sci-fi light infantry, stealthy light infantry, infantry wearing some form of cape, sci-fi infantry carrying a futuristic weapon, infantry carrying a knife as part of supplementary kit? Other than the name of the unit and the specific characters in the stories about that unit, the Tanith Ghosts are a hodge-podge of generic sci-fi tropes which do not become significantly unique by their amalgamation, and so since this female future light infantry soldier neither uses the name of the unit, nor the name of a character, nor is it substantially similar to any unique qualities that the no-longer-sold GW female Tanith trooper model may possess, arguing that it is an infringing work is completely unsupportable.
As for incorporating multiple sources; OK, someone else has already mentioned that the first association they made with that model was with the Fremen from Dune, so we're up to two influences already, and we've not even considered all the potential real-world influences, or the literally dozens-if-not-hundreds of other military sci-fi properties out there which describe futuristic light infantry with laser guns.
Also, I find it particularly hilarious that you're essentially arguing that Blight Wheel should be considered as in breach of copyright laws because they're infringing on one property(a point you've failed to prove), but GW aren't infringing on anyone's IP because they steal from lots of different people at once. Out of interest; how many different ideas would someone have to pinch before you stop considering them thieves and begin rushing to defend their honour on internet forums?
Yodhrin wrote: You mean the official Gaunt's Ghosts models which consist of five specific named characters and one meltagun-toting generic trooper, none of which are female and so cannot possibly be Tona Criid? You're going to have to tie yourself into even more knots than usual to justify the idea that a model with no analogue whatsoever in the range it's supposedly competing against is damaging GW's profits. If anything, companies who fill gaps in the GW range that they obviously have no intention of filling(the Ghosts models have been direct-only and languishing in the "Collectors" section for a long while now) are potentially improvingGW's profits, since people who want a Gaunt's Ghosts army could actually buy one, thus giving them reason to purchase the official GW Ghosts minis.
Except that there is a female Gaunt's Ghosts model, which I actuallly posted an image of. Further, you don't need to be an exact copy to be a copy. The core elements of the Ghosts are there (camo-cloak, lasgun, Tanith knife), and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.
What's a Tanith knife and how does it differ to a standard Bowie knife?
Yes the lasgun looks a lot like the GW one, but it's fairly generic, and camo-cloaks are pretty standard for light/stealth infantry.
They have similar core elements, but the core elements aren't unique enough, and many of the core elements aren't there either. If it had a Tanith cap badge for instance, using that would be an infringement because it's actually unique. This is a light sci-fi trooper with a laser rifle, knife and cloak; all items that seem standard kit for a light sci-fi trope.
The names are obvious knock-offs, but that's perfectly legal.
Considering the question of whether the not-loxatl is "competing" with GW as they don't actually make a miniature for them, would GW be able to argue that it's potentially causing them harm because they might have made a loxatl at some point in the future? I assume if so they'd have to provide proof like concept drawings or the claim would just be spurious; I doubt they could just say "well, they've been in our licenced novels and RPGs, so the option was always there."
Regarding the "Grant's Spectres" range, yes, the name is clearly meant to be a reference to Gaunt's Ghosts, and the theme of cape-wearing sci-fi light infantry is the same. I think Kanluwen used the ideal word earlier when he described it as "cheeky," which I can agree with, but on the other hand I would have thought certain aspects of the model made it too generic to be considered a direct copy. I certainly don't remember anyone in the books being gormless enough to run around with a bare midriff.
Incidentally, I thought it was meant to be Banda rather than Criid...
Everyone (except for Grot 6), has stated that the miniature is indeed a pretty blatant copy of the Loaxtl drawing, what people are disputing is that a 3D representation of a 2D image really constitutes infringement or not (and so the ridicule of the "obvious" statement by Kingsley).
Sean_OBrien stated earlier in the thread "transformation from 2D to 3D is not normally significant enough of a transformation to be outside copyright laws on its own." I take this to mean that if there is an existing 2d drawing that is copyright, and I make a 3d sculpture based on it, then I can be sued for copyright infringement and will likely be found guilty. In the eyes of the law the transformation from 2d to 3d is not creative enough to constitute something completely different, and hence it is not out of reach of the copyright laws.
In terms of the other comments in the thread about GW copying all sorts of stuff, well of course it is true. Almost all of GWs stuff is highly derivative. They are just lucky that the people that they copied from are not a bunch of d-bags.
Keep in mind that I consider some of GW's designs to obviously infringe copyright as well (or at least when they were originally created). I think they're rather lucky Moorcock didn't go after them for the Chaos star...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: So you're just going to ignore the fact that I've already pointed out that GW no longer sell the female Ghost model, and haven't for some time, so it's pretty bleedin' difficult for anyone to compete against it?
You edited that fact into your post after I had already started reply and I didn't see it, so claiming that I'm "ignoring" it isn't fair play. But it's a silly point anyway, because it's not like you have to be actively producing something for it to be yours. Would it be legitimate for someone to start making an old-school "HUGS" Carnifex because GW doesn't do so anymore? Of course not.
Yodhrin wrote: And as far as IP law is concerned, you may not need to be "an exact copy" to infringe copyright, but you do need to substantially copy elements which are unique to the concept at hand, or which are unique when taken as a whole. How many of these concepts are unique, alone or together; female soldier, sci-fi light infantry, stealthy light infantry, infantry wearing some form of cape, sci-fi infantry carrying a futuristic weapon, infantry carrying a knife as part of supplementary kit? Other than the name of the unit and the specific characters in the stories about that unit, the Tanith Ghosts are a hodge-podge of generic sci-fi tropes which do not become significantly unique by their amalgamation, and so since this female future light infantry soldier neither uses the name of the unit, nor the name of a character, nor is it substantially similar to any unique qualities that the no-longer-sold GW female Tanith trooper model may possess, arguing that it is an infringing work is completely unsupportable.
We'll let the courts decide that. I think it's laughable that anyone would even try to claim that these aren't Gaunt's Ghosts models, and in fact think the people doing so are attempting to move the goalposts after they were caught out not knowing GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models in the first place.
Except that there is a female Gaunt's Ghosts model, which I actuallly posted an image of. Further, you don't need to be an exact copy to be a copy. The core elements of the Ghosts are there (camo-cloak, lasgun, Tanith knife), and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.
You are seeing things that isn't there, mate.
Camo-cloak? How the hell do you know that the model presented in an unpainted "green" state has a camo-cloak? Furthermore that cape on the model doesn't even look remotely big enough to be used for anything else that a head covering in case of bad weather.
Lasgun? Sure, I'll grant you that. Now we just have to determine if GW owns the rights to a lasgun obviously inspired by real-world weapons.
Tanith Knife? How do you recognize a Tanith knife? I'll tell you how...Straight Silver.
We'll let the courts decide that. I think it's laughable that anyone would even try to claim that these aren't Gaunt's Ghosts models, and in fact think the people doing so are attempting to move the goalposts after they were caught out not knowing GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models in the first place.
They are obviously inspired by Gaunts Ghosts, but that's not the same as copying Gaunts Ghosts. They are just sci-fi light infantry with a scout specialization.
I'll admit to not knowing the GW ones existed, as a search for "Gaunt" didn't show them, but them existing doesn't make the Blight Wheel one a copy, especially since they look nothing like the GW ones.
What I still don't understand is why this is even a problem in the first place. It's not like there selling these models. There a free give away and from what I understand its a limited run. If GW isn't even currently selling a model for it or has no plan to then I don't see a problem. There not stealing sells. What I get out of it is look see what we sculpted here have one for free. I don't see how this is any different than your buddy next door sculpting thunder wolf calvery for your space wolfs ( before the models were out) and giving them to you for free.
..and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.
Or it is a tongue-in-cheek reference..
Kinda like.....oh, I don't know...
Last Chancers
Colonel Shaeffer
Sly Marbo
Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau
Lion'El Johnson
M'Shen and Konrad Kurze
Kruellagh the Vile
Holy Orb of Antioch
Hall of Leng
And many, many, MANY others perpetrated by your infallible GW.
This is not a question of "two wrongs does not make one right". This a case of the legal concept of "Clean Hands".
..and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.
Or it is a tongue-in-cheek reference..
Kinda like.....oh, I don't know...
Last Chancers
Colonel Shaeffer
Sly Marbo
Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau
Lion'El Johnson
M'Shen and Konrad Kurze
Kruellagh the Vile
Holy Orb of Antioch
Hall of Leng
And many, many, MANY others perpetrated by your infallible GW.
This is not a question of "two wrongs does not make one right". This a case of the legal concept of "Clean Hands".
So I know Marbo, IOSC, Lion'El, the Holy Orb, and I just now got the Kruellagh the Vile thing, but what do the rest refer to? I don't always catch onto these sorts of things as quickly as I ought.
..and the name makes it very apparent what they were copying here.
Or it is a tongue-in-cheek reference..
Kinda like.....oh, I don't know...
Last Chancers
Colonel Shaeffer
Sly Marbo
Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau
Lion'El Johnson
M'Shen and Konrad Kurze
Kruellagh the Vile
Holy Orb of Antioch
Hall of Leng
And many, many, MANY others perpetrated by your infallible GW.
This is not a question of "two wrongs does not make one right". This a case of the legal concept of "Clean Hands".
So I know Marbo, IOSC, Lion'El, the Holy Orb, and I just now got the Kruellagh the Vile thing, but what do the rest refer to? I don't always catch onto these sorts of things as quickly as I ought.
Last Chancers refer to the Dirty Dozen
Colonel Shaeffer is from Predator
Konrad Kruze and M'Shen are both from Apocalypse Now!. Colonel Kurtz is the moody, dark, brooding officer gone rogue and Martin Sheen plays the character sent to assassinate him.
The Hall of Leng is a hall in the imperial palace built in the Himalayas. The plateau of Leng is a place of horror in the Himalayas in H.P Lovecrafts works.
We'll let the courts decide that. I think it's laughable that anyone would even try to claim that these aren't Gaunt's Ghosts models, and in fact think the people doing so are attempting to move the goalposts after they were caught out not knowing GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models in the first place.
Psst... Psst, my question for you to post the GW Gaunt's Ghosts was a rhetorical one so that I could show you that they aren't the same models. I'm perfectly aware that GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models, especially because I OWN a full 2 squad + command squad platoon of said models.
We'll let the courts decide that. I think it's laughable that anyone would even try to claim that these aren't Gaunt's Ghosts models, and in fact think the people doing so are attempting to move the goalposts after they were caught out not knowing GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models in the first place.
Psst... Psst, my question for you to post the GW Gaunt's Ghosts was a rhetorical one so that I could show you that they aren't the same models. I'm perfectly aware that GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models, especially because I OWN a full 2 squad + command squad platoon of said models.
Everyone (except for Grot 6), has stated that the miniature is indeed a pretty blatant copy of the Loaxtl drawing, what people are disputing is that a 3D representation of a 2D image really constitutes infringement or not (and so the ridicule of the "obvious" statement by Kingsley).
Sean_OBrien stated earlier in the thread "transformation from 2D to 3D is not normally significant enough of a transformation to be outside copyright laws on its own." I take this to mean that if there is an existing 2d drawing that is copyright, and I make a 3d sculpture based on it, then I can be sued for copyright infringement and will likely be found guilty. In the eyes of the law the transformation from 2d to 3d is not creative enough to constitute something completely different, and hence it is not out of reach of the copyright laws.
In terms of the other comments in the thread about GW copying all sorts of stuff, well of course it is true. Almost all of GWs stuff is highly derivative. They are just lucky that the people that they copied from are not a bunch of d-bags.
On its own...
Courts evaluate copyright infringement based on two big factors (lots more than two...but it generally boils down to two). First is the uniqueness of a particular work. Something like the lizard thing is much more unique then the later mentioned (though not being actively contested, yet) scout girl. Very little on the scout girl is unique, whereas a few things on the lizard are unique (the chest mounted cannon in particular...beyond that it is a lot of fairly standard stuff).
The second is the overall feeling, composition and manner that those non-unique things are put together - and how that is or is not substantial to the work. For example, on the lizard thing...spikes on lizards are not that unique. The two spikes on the base of the tail of the lizard thing become more distinctive. The dew claws of the lizard thing were mentioned in the text IIRC as being important to the lizard thing in context, but are absent from the BW miniature. A cannon on the back or even sides of the head would be less unique, as those mounting points are more common. Although there is a lot of research that would go into it...this portion largely boils down to a gut feeling.
We'll let the courts decide that. I think it's laughable that anyone would even try to claim that these aren't Gaunt's Ghosts models, and in fact think the people doing so are attempting to move the goalposts after they were caught out not knowing GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models in the first place
Not in the least, as I said, it could clearly be meant as a Gaunt's Ghosts replacement and not make any difference at all. The lack of anything distinctive makes it a difficult concept to protect. The only thing which most people would be able to point to is the lasgun... But GWs lasgun is hardly unique. The slanted muzzle shows up well before GW adopted it (see Metal Magic or Laser Eraser before that).
Everything else, from the cloak to the knife are standard and are not even that unique in their composition (any number of illustrations during the 30+ year history of Heavy Metal magazine fit the bill).
You edited that fact into your post after I had already started reply and I didn't see it, so claiming that I'm "ignoring" it isn't fair play. But it's a silly point anyway, because it's not like you have to be actively producing something for it to be yours. Would it be legitimate for someone to start making an old-school "HUGS" Carnifex because GW doesn't do so anymore? Of course not.
Actually, in jolly old England...it would be. The exclusive design right that GW would hold on those has long since expired, and pretty much anyone there could in fact make exact copies. Design rights were in fact written specifically to deal with consumer products that have gone OOP to a large extent.
GW have been playing IP bully for so long I find it hard to care whether they're in the right or not in this case. Maybe it is an infringement, I dunno, but seeing as how there's a mountain of bs ownership claims behind them I'm not too keen to take them seriously anymore.
And I don't really see the similarity between GW's GG model and BWM's "homage". Honest to god I can't even tell which one of the GW models this girl is supposed to be, the only thing that looks similar to me is her fething gun. I see no bare midriffs, I don't see anyone with that hairstyle, and I don't think you can sue because of a cloak. Are you sure any of these models are actually female?
The only thing tying the female model to 'Gaunts Ghost' is the makers own words explicitly saying it was explicitly to represent a character from GW's 'Gaunts Ghosts' characters.
Public statements like that go a long way to establish intent and make it much harder to claim, "Nah, she is just a jungle female solider we made... She is pretty muscular and not gaunt at all, and she is alive, so she isn't undead."
And this idea that someone has to be making a directly competing model for IP to be infringed upon simply isn't true. If I made a Mickey Mouse model and said "mickey Mouse doesn't make wargaming minis, Disney has no directly competing model, I am not infringing" I would be laughing all the way to the poor house as I would be sued to death.
You know, GW could just make Loxatl minis, straight from their own artwork, cheaper and perhaps even a better sculpt than the blightwheel one and let the market decide if they really do make 'the best model soldiers in the world'.
Instead of saturation bombing the rest of the miniature making world with endless C&D for artwork of things they had no intention of releasing, get on with getting your house in order. If there is a market for these miniatures, why the feth aren't you selling them you colossal, ponderous, arrogant old bastard?
Quit trampling cottage industries and GET ON WITH MAKING PRODUCT. You have a huge manufacturing capability compared to these dudes, make something better, cheaper.
'Deliver up all moulds to us, you have 20 seconds to comply'...
Blow them out of the water IN THE MARKET. Stop being a legal company and start being a wargames company ffs. If a company is making shoulder pads for space marine chapters you aren't making shoulder pads for, MAKE THE SHOULDER PADS and make them better and cheaper.
...fething company drives me nuts. Stop lounging about in boardrooms 'defending' your IP and go and USE IT!!!! Relish the competition and strive to beat it instead of pissing your pants and hiding behind legal teams, you pack of entrenched, stale, antiquated and frightened gaks. What are you going to do when a real threat occurs? When someone gets enough backing to launch a large range of excellently sculpted scifi plastics onto the market and you can't just rely on your overzealous legal team of attack dogs?
Although I think GW has some sort of claim on this one (but it still doesn't explain why BBC is not suing Hasslefree for making not-DW models), I still think that, whether they have a claim or not, threatening to sue at this moment in time is a PR mistake.
They are under negative views right now after the Spots the Space Marine fiasco and anything they do to defend their IP as per usual will gain them unpopularity points, whether they're in the right or not.
- BW model has 4 fingers per hand, not 5 as in the GW artwork.
- BW model has 1 elbow spike, GW sketch has 2
- The pose is different
- GW sketch has multiple nasal ports, BW model has 2
- BW model has a single barrel on the gun, while GW has multiple cylinders in parallel with the barrel.
Are they close, yes. Are they the same, no. It's no different than one horse vs another horse.
Warboss Gubbinz wrote: On a more serious note. I totally understand why GW is going after these guys. Its just too similar, regardless of the legal ramifications.
That said, wouldn't GW's budget be better spent putting out a competing resin model? So instead of competing they are just shutting it down? who wins here?
Is the proper answer no one?
I think that is very much the answer. The real losers in this scenario are the customers. The only customers who would purchase the Blight Wheel model are those who either have no idea it has any connection to Games Workshop and those who are in all likelihood loyal fans and customers of Games Workshop; familiar with the obscure reference and active enough to be making a customized army for use in GW's games.
BWM pretty much stated that it is meant to be representative of Tona Criid, a sergeant of Gaunt's Ghosts.
They may very well have - but that doesn't make GW's concept protectable.
Regarding the wood stocked, high tech rifle. Common - especially out of Japan...and Star Wars too if my memory is correct (things like the T-21 and DLT-19 both had wooden stocks on them).
And, well, it is a fact that numerous, numerous, numerous firearms throughout history and today are manufactured with wooden stocks. A gun with a wooden stock is not a trope of a genre, it is in the public domain.
UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote: @kingsley could you provide a link to a loxatl miniature on the GW web store please? Thanks x
The comment I was replying to pertained to the Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, not the loxatl knockoff. I think the loxatl model is a ripoff that should be quashed but the Gaunt's Ghosts one seems like a much more clear-cut case.
You have it backwards guy. If you take a look at the issues from a perspective of the real world, rather than a view of the world with GW at the center, that is how the issues are. Any claim against that female warrior model by anyone would be nigh impossible to maintain.
Everyone (except for Grot 6), has stated that the miniature is indeed a pretty blatant copy of the Loaxtl drawing, what people are disputing is that a 3D representation of a 2D image really constitutes infringement or not (and so the ridicule of the "obvious" statement by Kingsley).
Sean_OBrien stated earlier in the thread "transformation from 2D to 3D is not normally significant enough of a transformation to be outside copyright laws on its own." I take this to mean that if there is an existing 2d drawing that is copyright, and I make a 3d sculpture based on it, then I can be sued for copyright infringement and will likely be found guilty. In the eyes of the law the transformation from 2d to 3d is not creative enough to constitute something completely different, and hence it is not out of reach of the copyright laws.
In terms of the other comments in the thread about GW copying all sorts of stuff, well of course it is true. Almost all of GWs stuff is highly derivative. They are just lucky that the people that they copied from are not a bunch of d-bags.
That's not what Sean said. The point is that 2D to 3D dos not itself bar a finding of infringement. It does, however, mean that there will always be differences between the works. That does not settle the question of whether or not those differences are insubstantial one way or the other.
nkelsch wrote: The only thing tying the female model to 'Gaunts Ghost' is the makers own words explicitly saying it was explicitly to represent a character from GW's 'Gaunts Ghosts' characters.
Public statements like that go a long way to establish intent and make it much harder to claim, "Nah, she is just a jungle female solider we made... She is pretty muscular and not gaunt at all, and she is alive, so she isn't undead."
And this idea that someone has to be making a directly competing model for IP to be infringed upon simply isn't true. If I made a Mickey Mouse model and said "mickey Mouse doesn't make wargaming minis, Disney has no directly competing model, I am not infringing" I would be laughing all the way to the poor house as I would be sued to death.
Intent may sway opinion, but INTENT to infringe IP is not afaik illegal. My local GW manager spouts intent all the time about CHS. Intent to infringe is meaningless if no infringement actually took place.
I intend to speed on the freeway later today, but I can't be charged with it based on that intent.
This isn't fraud or murder, it's toy soldiers.
Also, Mickey Mouse's image is a major trademark and also already exists in thousands of three dimensional representations, at least one of which I'm sure is near 28mm scale.
Gaunts Ghosts are hardly some popular thing that the public would immediately identify(I still have no clue what they are, other than perhaps a few crap models posted earlier in the thread).
nkelsch wrote: The only thing tying the female model to 'Gaunts Ghost' is the makers own words explicitly saying it was explicitly to represent a character from GW's 'Gaunts Ghosts' characters.
Public statements like that go a long way to establish intent and make it much harder to claim, "Nah, she is just a jungle female solider we made... She is pretty muscular and not gaunt at all, and she is alive, so she isn't undead."
And this idea that someone has to be making a directly competing model for IP to be infringed upon simply isn't true. If I made a Mickey Mouse model and said "mickey Mouse doesn't make wargaming minis, Disney has no directly competing model, I am not infringing" I would be laughing all the way to the poor house as I would be sued to death.
In the US, there is solid precedent establishing that intention to copy does not supersede similarity. There must be substantial similarity, regardless of intent. I can say that I am copying your drawing. I can videotape myself doing it. I can swear under oath that it was my express intent to copy your drawing in every conceivable detail. But regardless of my intent, my attempt to copy may fail so horribly as to not actually be a copy at all and in fact could be my own protectable work of art.
Without trying to be condescending, do you understand the concept? I ask because I can go into more detail if you would like. Bill Patry has a very interesting blog post about it too.
Edit: Aerethan - You are on the right track. I may intend to speed on the freeway, but if my car can only get up to 60 mph, I haven't actually gone over the speed limit, no matter how hard I push on the accelerator. I may, in fact, believe that I am speeding, if for example my speedometer is broken. I may even admit to speeding when pulled over by a cop. But if the officer lasered me at 60 mph and pulled me over for a busted tail light (do you expect that heap to have two working tail lights), the officer cannot write me a ticket for speeding.
I will admit that this is a much better example for GW to go after than 'Spot the Space Marine'.
In this case, even if Blightworld does take it to court there is a goodly chance that GW can back up their claim.
And, as an aside... why the heck would you sling the gun under the head? That is a crappy place for the gun, regardless of manufactor. More likely to have LOS blocked, more susceptible to environmental damage, worse clearance.... so, why?
TheAuldGrump wrote: I will admit that this is a much better example for GW to go after than 'Spot the Space Marine'.
In this case, even if Blightworld does take it to court there is a goodly chance that GW can back up their claim.
And, as an aside... why the heck would you sling the gun under the head? That is a crappy place for the gun, regardless of manufactor. More likely to have LOS blocked, more susceptible to environmental damage, worse clearance.... so, why?
The Auld Grump
The more important question is how in the heck can that lizard reach it's bandoleer of ammo? I guess it is just there to make the lizard feel like a bad!
nkelsch wrote: The only thing tying the female model to 'Gaunts Ghost' is the makers own words explicitly saying it was explicitly to represent a character from GW's 'Gaunts Ghosts' characters.
Public statements like that go a long way to establish intent and make it much harder to claim, "Nah, she is just a jungle female solider we made... She is pretty muscular and not gaunt at all, and she is alive, so she isn't undead."
And this idea that someone has to be making a directly competing model for IP to be infringed upon simply isn't true. If I made a Mickey Mouse model and said "mickey Mouse doesn't make wargaming minis, Disney has no directly competing model, I am not infringing" I would be laughing all the way to the poor house as I would be sued to death.
In the US, there is solid precedent establishing that intention to copy does not supersede similarity. There must be substantial similarity, regardless of intent. I can say that I am copying your drawing. I can videotape myself doing it. I can swear under oath that it was my express intent to copy your drawing in every conceivable detail. But regardless of my intent, my attempt to copy may fail so horribly as to not actually be a copy at all and in fact could be my own protectable work of art.
Without trying to be condescending, do you understand the concept? I ask because I can go into more detail if you would like. Bill Patry has a very interesting blog post about it too.
Are you saying a copy may not infringe because it simply doesn't look like the result or it was a bad attempt? I would say some of the models out there currently going through this exact situation are models which are similar enough and they publicly proclaimed them to be copied off of official art/designs/characters/trademarks.
If the attempt is close, like the lizard in question, and they have evidence of the creators publicly commenting they directly copied it off of GW's concept art, are you saying that providing that 'intent' means nothing? Or only means something if the result is 'close enough'
I know in Copyrights you can 'claim' independent creation where you claim to have never seen or have no knowledge of the infringed upon source. Such discussions of trademark or direct copying makes that defense not relevant. (not that I am saying they are claiming their komodo cyborg whatever is an independent creation)
From my (admittedly shaky) memory, I think the Loaxatl weapons have some kind of autoloading mechanism which also serves to rotate the weapon around their torso so they can still shoot stuff while wall-climbing.
Those that are saying the Blightwheel mini is being give away free have got it slightly wrong
They intend(ed?) to give it away ONLY to those who bought £50+ of blight wheel product on the day, so it was intended to sell product
slightly different from a first come first served freebie on a stall, or a mini given away to anybody attending the salute show
The mini itself is clearly based off the GW art and as such blight wheel should have been prepared for trouble. It's no different from Legendarion producing minis based on old Rackham art.
either get a licence from the original artist (the right way to do things),
make significant changes eg clearly different gun/gun mount or lizard (there are oh so many real life ones to copy, why do one just like that)
stay in a jurisdiction where the law either lets you do it (or just isn't enforced),
be prepared to bin the work you've done when you get a letter like this
or be prepared to fight your corner in court
as a commercial organisation distributing your work the choice is yours
(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)
(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)
But when the very person who has committed the same crime, multiple times, is pointing the finger at you, crying 'j'accuse' and demanding recompense from you for your temerity... well, it makes it all the more contemptible and derisive.
(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)
But isn't exactly because of this that the Clean Hands Doctrine exists?
Couldn't Blight Wheel invoke it in a case like this?
I know in Copyrights you can 'claim' independent creation where you claim to have never seen or have no knowledge of the infringed upon source. Such discussions of trademark or direct copying makes that defense not relevant. (not that I am saying they are claiming their komodo cyborg whatever is an independent creation)
How common is the book in which the image exists? I was under the impression it was a bestiary supplement that is no longer published.
Would it affect the case if the sculptor based the sculpture on the description and it just happens to look like an obsolete image (chosen specifically because it looks like the figure). There are only so many ways one can draw a komodo dragon with a bionic implant and a bandolier fed chest cannon.
(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)
But isn't exactly because of this that the Clean Hands Doctrine exists?
Couldn't Blight Wheel invoke it in a case like this?
Did GW steal the Loxatl from someone else and is there an example where it is directly infringing upon someone else's properties? It would be fun to watch someone try to argue it in court, but to try to claim everything GW does infringes so nothing they do is protect-able seems like a hard case to make and would be an uphill battle.
(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)
But isn't exactly because of this that the Clean Hands Doctrine exists?
Couldn't Blight Wheel invoke it in a case like this?
Did GW steal the Loxatl from someone else and is there an example where it is directly infringing upon someone else's properties? It would be fun to watch someone try to argue it in court, but to try to claim everything GW does infringes so nothing they do is protect-able seems like a hard case to make and would be an uphill battle.
Ignoring this specific model, the second part you said is correct. Juts because GW has questionable ownership and practices on some of it's products does not negate the legitimacy of other products outright.
Which is why IP law is handled on a case by case basis. GW may not own the Ultramarine symbol even though they claim to, but that doesn't mean that GW doesn't own the Warhammer 40,000 logo or other obvious original copyrights.
GW does have plenty of copyrights that are legitimate, and that legitimacy isn't ever lost because GW sued and (theoretically) lost over some other item that was in dispute.
(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)
But isn't exactly because of this that the Clean Hands Doctrine exists?
Couldn't Blight Wheel invoke it in a case like this?
Did GW steal the Loxatl from someone else and is there an example where it is directly infringing upon someone else's properties? It would be fun to watch someone try to argue it in court, but to try to claim everything GW does infringes so nothing they do is protect-able seems like a hard case to make and would be an uphill battle.
The Loxatl does not have to be the specific model that GW has copied from somewhere, nor does it have to be everything that GW has ever done, for the Clean Hands Doctrine to take effect. Prior in this thread somebody posted a picture of an Alien next to a Tyranid. See, GW has Dirty Hands...
nkelsch wrote: Are you saying a copy may not infringe because it simply doesn't look like the result or it was a bad attempt?
Yep. That is exactly what I am saying. Intent is probative of access, but access can already be inferred by similarity alone.
In order to copy something, you have to have the thing you want to copy. This is a good way to cut to the core of what copyright really means. It means copying. It is impossible to copy something that you do not know exists, or that you do not have any access to. Similarity, even 100% exact similarity, would then be inactionable coincidence, assuming that one could prove lack of access, because copying could not have possibly taken place.
Precedent contemplates that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you probably saw the duck at some point. However, if we engage in a Talmud-esque intellectual exercise; If I was living on Mars my entire life, and created my work of art on Mars, such that it would have been impossible for me to have had access to your work of art, it is impossible for me to have copied said work, even if the two works are exactly 100% the same. Maybe aliens beamed it into both of our heads or something.
Similarity really is not the important part of copyright law, copying is the important part. Establishing substantial similarity is a means to prove copying, but only because precedent contemplates that one cannot avoid a finding of copying by making "insignificant" alterations to a work of art. But therein lies the intellectual snake pit. Conceptually, it is a good idea. You wouldn't want someone to photocopy your drawing, put a red dot in the bottom corner, and say, "this is not a copy." Technically, no, it is not a literal copy, but it would copy everything that makes your work unique, possibly without having any uniqueness of its own. But who is to say a mustache on the Mona Lisa is not 'art'?
What makes a work of art a work of art? What is an "insignificant" difference? What is a "significant" difference? Case law points to many different 'tests' that courts have used to draw a (somewhat) objective standard around this thorny issue. There is the "ordinary observer" test, the "more discerning observer" test, the "total concept and feel" test, and the "fragmented literal similarity" test, to name a few.
You can't just say, "I know a copy when I see a copy." That is not good enough when it comes to the law, or rather that should not be good enough. Between an exact, literal, 100%, dictionary definition of a copy; and a similar, but unique, work of art is a treacherous jungle of subjectivity. The law provides some crude tools with which to hack away at the brush, but you really have to know where you are going in order to get any use out of them.
Within this metaphor, I would say that copying is the north star, and originality is your compass. As I have said before, intellectual property is not intellectual because it exists in your mind; it is intellectual because it is the product of your intellect. Artists only get to protect the work that they do, not the work that anyone else has done and not the work that someone else might do in the future. Thus, originality and copying are essential guides. What makes a work of art different from the work of other artists? What has the artists drawn from the public domain? What remains? The remainder is the artwork. It is the "protected expression" that is the sole extent of one's rights.
Expression - That which is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. That which actually exists outside of your mind as a tangible artifact.
Protected - That which among your expression is original to you, and only to you.
In order to make a copy one must steal protected expression. Everything else is fair game.
(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)
But isn't exactly because of this that the Clean Hands Doctrine exists?
Couldn't Blight Wheel invoke it in a case like this?
Did GW steal the Loxatl from someone else and is there an example where it is directly infringing upon someone else's properties? It would be fun to watch someone try to argue it in court, but to try to claim everything GW does infringes so nothing they do is protect-able seems like a hard case to make and would be an uphill battle.
The Loxatl does not have to be the specific model that GW has copied from somewhere, nor does it have to be everything that GW has ever done, for the Clean Hands Doctrine to take effect. Prior in this thread somebody posted a picture of an Alien next to a Tyranid. See, GW has Dirty Hands...
Clean Hands Doctrine applies to the subject matter being disputed. It means that as long as GW wasn't/can't be sued for copying the art from someone else, then they are "clean" on that item.
It does not apply to every item the company has ever released. If H.R. Geiger wanted to sue GW he might have something, but until he does, GW is clean on it.
Given that the model is inspired by lizards / dinosaurs can they really claim IP? Where do you draw the line? A human Cyborg model could look very similar to an unarmoured Space Marine. What's stopping them (GW) from laying claim to that type of look?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: You know, GW could just make Loxatl minis, straight from their own artwork, cheaper and perhaps even a better sculpt than the blightwheel one and let the market decide if they really do make 'the best model soldiers in the world'.
For all we know they could be doing that, but we won't find out until a week before Lizardmen in Space hit the shelves.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: You know, GW could just make Loxatl minis, straight from their own artwork, cheaper and perhaps even a better sculpt than the blightwheel one and let the market decide if they really do make 'the best model soldiers in the world'.
For all we know they could be doing that, but we'll never know until a week before Lizardmen in Space hit the shelves.
If we're going to see Loxatl, it won't be from GW.
It would be from Forge World...and considering that there were in fact rumblings of "Loxatl Mercenaries" playing a part in the original Imperial Armour 12 concept(An Imperial prison colony suffers an uprising orchestrated by Tzeentchian cultists within the prison population, with outside support from a Blood Pact-esque group of traitor guardsmen who come to the aid of the cultists and then further set up a ritual to summon the Thousand Sons to the prison for some dark and nefarious purpose), there's the possibility that such things were coming.
JB_Man wrote: That thing is an obvious copy... you can't even defend that.
I know what you are saying, but where do you draw the line? I've buried at home some Dragonlance Graphic novels and ok they are in a fantasy setting, the lizardmen in there have a similar look and feel about them. There's the Kleggs from Judge Dredd. I think there was even a lizardman story at some point.
Thing is, you cant argue that its an obvious copy, but why are GW so anal about things that they dont make?
Why not just ask them for 30% of the profits from the model?
Kinda like a Subway franchise, if they do that, then third parties get to make GW gak, and GW have to do no work at all, its almost like free money!
I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?
mattyrm wrote: Thing is, you cant argue that its an obvious copy, but why are GW so anal about things that they dont make?
Why not just ask them for 30% of the profits from the model?
Kinda like a Subway franchise, if they do that, then third parties get to make GW gak, and GW have to do no work at all, its almost like free money!
I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?
But if GW licenses out models they won't be able to pretend having a monopoly on the HHHobby.
And it can't be an exact copy, as that would mean the product is a 2d drawing. It's a derivative work at best, since many details are clearly different. Ideas are not protected, only expressions of ideas in a tangible medium. And the 3d expression of the IDEA of that creature is different in several ways than the 2d expression.
What profits from the model? It's a give away with purchases over a certain size. You could argue that people are specifically spending more to get the model, but putting a figure on that is going to be pretty difficult to justify.
Have not read through all this as its long and I do not have the time etc...
While GW may have a case on this one they also may not. Can GW prove they even own the artwork because so far like with CHS case where they do not. It just maybe a case that blight house can say hey show me you own the rights to the art or take your c&d letter and shove it.
I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?
I think the key phrase here is 'why the feth not' ?
Really - who gives a feth about any of this? Can you imagine any GW games developer or otherwise employee, or fan, seriously giving a damn about this one-off miniature that will be released and then disappear? No, of course not.
Once again, this has got 'expensive legal department trying to justify its existence' written all over it. And whether they are justified in this action or not, once again they will come out of it looking like a bully.
I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?
I think the key phrase here is 'why the feth not' ?
Really - who gives a feth about any of this? Can you imagine any GW games developer or otherwise employee, or fan, seriously giving a damn about this one-off miniature that will be released and then disappear? No, of course not.
Once again, this has got 'expensive legal department trying to justify its existence' written all over it. And whether they are justified in this action or not, once again they will come out of it looking like a bully.
Too true, as you say, its one model.
The fethers really should consider licensing gak out, it just seems like a way to print money. If every company that wants to make the models that GW aren't providing, or even intending to make at all(gak, they could even ask them before hand like "You want to make Space Marines? feth off.., oh but you can make these Necromunda gangers") it can only be good news for the cretins that seem to be running things surely?
Getting some money, from things you weren't going to make and sell anyway? What's not to like?
mattyrm wrote: Thing is, you cant argue that its an obvious copy, but why are GW so anal about things that they dont make?
Why not just ask them for 30% of the profits from the model?
Kinda like a Subway franchise, if they do that, then third parties get to make GW gak, and GW have to do no work at all, its almost like free money!
I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?
But if GW licenses out models they won't be able to pretend having a monopoly on the HHHobby.
And it can't be an exact copy, as that would mean the product is a 2d drawing. It's a derivative work at best, since many details are clearly different. Ideas are not protected, only expressions of ideas in a tangible medium. And the 3d expression of the IDEA of that creature is different in several ways than the 2d expression.
I think it would hard to argue that it is a derivative work. Copy, maybe, but derivative work...a derivative work has to be a copy anyhow. Being a derivative work does not expand the scope of copyright protection beyond copying. A derivative work, at least in the US, transforms, adapts, or recasts the root work. That is, a derivative work beings with the root work or a copy of the root work and then modifies it.
It is difficult to say, in my opinion, that a sculptural work is a modification of a 2D work of art. I would think it is easier to make a case that it is simply a straight up copy. Almost all examples of derivative works in the US Code are narrative in nature: translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation. Those remaining are direct ports of the root work into a new work of art, i.e. sound recording and art reproduction. I believe that these refer to, for example, printing a photograph of a painting in a book and a sound recording that is in some way transformed, recast, or otherwise adapted, i.e. the new work is a compilation of copies of different works. The compilation is a new work of art because it requires potentially original creativity to make it (choosing the art, the arrangement, etc.) but it reproduces works of art.
You can't take a page of the compilation out of context and say that the compilation is a copy of bla work of art, because the compilation is the work of art. But that page IS a copy of bla work of art, so the compilation infringes, AND is a new work of art.
A derivative work is a unique, protectable work of art in its own right, simply one that unfairly appropriates the protected expression of the root work in a transformed, adapted, or recast format. A pictoral or graphic work of art and a sculptural work of art both rely on visual appearance. You can copy the many of the protected elements from a pictoral or graphic work in a sculptural work.
I would look at a derivative work to be something like all of the different poses of separate Cadian IG models. It is essentially the same figure positioned different ways. You could take a cast of one Cadian IG guy, transform it into a different pose by cutting it up and rescupting a few bits, and give it a different face. That, to me, says derivative work. You take one work of art and make it into another, different, work of art that is DERRIVED from the first work.
Here's a good example I think. You could take the drawing of the loxatl, and draw all of your own crazy cool background around it. The thing is crawling on a wall that we do not see, right. So you could draw all of that stuff in. Because of what you added, it would be a new work of art, but it would incorporate the loxatl drawing someone else did. So it is a copy AND an original work of art. That is a derivative work. The artist has an exclusive right to, say, fill out the background around his mutant lizard drawing.
The problem that I have with derivative works is that people look at it and say, "Well, it looks similar, but there are a lot of differences. It isn't a copy, but it must be derivative." The similarities may very well have to do with common public domain sources, or things that are not protected expression in the asserted work. The differences in such a context would be much more significant. Throwing around the concept of derivative works can become a surrogate for diminishing the significance of extant differences, i.e. used as evidence to argue in favor of the work being a copy.
But a work has to be a copy FIRST in order to be derivative. The concept of derivative works does not allow you to back into a finding of copying that would otherwise not be sustainable.
mattyrm wrote: Thing is, you cant argue that its an obvious copy, but why are GW so anal about things that they dont make?
Why not just ask them for 30% of the profits from the model?
Kinda like a Subway franchise, if they do that, then third parties get to make GW gak, and GW have to do no work at all, its almost like free money!
I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?
But if GW licenses out models they won't be able to pretend having a monopoly on the HHHobby.
And it can't be an exact copy, as that would mean the product is a 2d drawing. It's a derivative work at best, since many details are clearly different. Ideas are not protected, only expressions of ideas in a tangible medium. And the 3d expression of the IDEA of that creature is different in several ways than the 2d expression.
Surely a 2d image would be used for inspiration or a base to work from? Which means you could argue that there is no guarantee that the finished model made by GW would be a 100% copy of the 2d image. So if GW hasn't produced a 3d model, how can it be a copy? If it was a model of a Space Marine then GW would be well within their rights to put the boot in.
I think it would hard to argue that it is a derivative work. Copy, maybe, but derivative work...a derivative work has to be a copy anyhow. Being a derivative work does not expand the scope of copyright protection beyond copying.
It is a derivative work to the extent that the sculptor has (presumably) taken the original drawing and interpreted it with a new pose, new weapon, and various new details of the anatomy of the base lizard.
The core idea of a lizard with a gun underneath is clearly the same.
mattyrm wrote: Thing is, you cant argue that its an obvious copy, but why are GW so anal about things that they dont make?
Why not just ask them for 30% of the profits from the model?
Kinda like a Subway franchise, if they do that, then third parties get to make GW gak, and GW have to do no work at all, its almost like free money!
I won't defend blight wheel on this one, its obviously an exact copy, but I think GW are a bit silly doing this with things they don't even make a model for, I mean, why the feth not? Theres a big difference between someone else making space marines and someone making one gakky monster they probably never would have gotten around to sculpting anyway surely?
But if GW licenses out models they won't be able to pretend having a monopoly on the HHHobby.
And it can't be an exact copy, as that would mean the product is a 2d drawing. It's a derivative work at best, since many details are clearly different. Ideas are not protected, only expressions of ideas in a tangible medium. And the 3d expression of the IDEA of that creature is different in several ways than the 2d expression.
I think it would hard to argue that it is a derivative work. Copy, maybe, but derivative work...a derivative work has to be a copy anyhow. Being a derivative work does not expand the scope of copyright protection beyond copying. A derivative work, at least in the US, transforms, adapts, or recasts the root work. That is, a derivative work beings with the root work or a copy of the root work and then modifies it.
It is difficult to say, in my opinion, that a sculptural work is a modification of a 2D work of art. I would think it is easier to make a case that it is simply a straight up copy. Almost all examples of derivative works in the US Code are narrative in nature: translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation. Those remaining are direct ports of the root work into a new work of art, i.e. sound recording and art reproduction. I believe that these refer to, for example, printing a photograph of a painting in a book and a sound recording that is in some way transformed, recast, or otherwise adapted, i.e. the new work is a compilation of copies of different works. The compilation is a new work of art because it requires potentially original creativity to make it (choosing the art, the arrangement, etc.) but it reproduces works of art.
You can't take a page of the compilation out of context and say that the compilation is a copy of bla work of art, because the compilation is the work of art. But that page IS a copy of bla work of art, so the compilation infringes, AND is a new work of art.
A derivative work is a unique, protectable work of art in its own right, simply one that unfairly appropriates the protected expression of the root work in a transformed, adapted, or recast format. A pictoral or graphic work of art and a sculptural work of art both rely on visual appearance. You can copy the many of the protected elements from a pictoral or graphic work in a sculptural work.
I would look at a derivative work to be something like all of the different poses of separate Cadian IG models. It is essentially the same figure positioned different ways. You could take a cast of one Cadian IG guy, transform it into a different pose by cutting it up and rescupting a few bits, and give it a different face. That, to me, says derivative work. You take one work of art and make it into another, different, work of art that is DERRIVED from the first work.
Here's a good example I think. You could take the drawing of the loxatl, and draw all of your own crazy cool background around it. The thing is crawling on a wall that we do not see, right. So you could draw all of that stuff in. Because of what you added, it would be a new work of art, but it would incorporate the loxatl drawing someone else did. So it is a copy AND an original work of art. That is a derivative work. The artist has an exclusive right to, say, fill out the background around his mutant lizard drawing.
The problem that I have with derivative works is that people look at it and say, "Well, it looks similar, but there are a lot of differences. It isn't a copy, but it must be derivative." The similarities may very well have to do with common public domain sources, or things that are not protected expression in the asserted work. The differences in such a context would be much more significant. Throwing around the concept of derivative works can become a surrogate for diminishing the significance of extant differences, i.e. used as evidence to argue in favor of the work being a copy.
But a work has to be a copy FIRST in order to be derivative. The concept of derivative works does not allow you to back into a finding of copying that would otherwise not be sustainable.
Thank you for the clarification of the legal concept of derivative works.
Derivative is the wrong word choice for me then. Inspired might be a better word. Clearly the model takes ideas from the drawing, but it changes details in a way that make it unique from the drawing.
I was not aware that something needed to be a copy in order to be derivative, and that alone means I used the term incorrectly.
So if I sculpt a 3d rendition of the Mona Lisa, it's copying?
Furthermore, most of this discussion is from the eyes of US citizens, and we generally don't know UK law as well as we know our own(and we don't usually know our own too well to begin with).
Design rights for this item as a toy would have expired 15 years after it's creation iirc. Anyone in the UK want to start cranking out pre 1998 GW models?
So if I sculpt a 3d rendition of the Mona Lisa, it's copying?
Well, you can pick widely used things like the Mona Lisa (probably the most heavily parodied image of all time) to try and dilute the point, but clearly, yes you are.
Obviously you are! If you made a 3D mona lisa, people would not say "thats a cool 3d model of a random bird" they would say "feth me, thats a great 3d Mona Lisa!"
Surely its a bit daft to say you can't infringe on an artwork if you make a model from a drawing?
That seems really silly. If I make a mini of a drawing, say Link from Legend of Zelda, and its identical to a drawing, thats obviously copyright infringement.
All minis start out as a drawing, I loved some of Mantics artworks, especially for their KOW kickstarter, If I got the artwork of their ogres, and then made an absolutely identical model and started selling it, I would hugely be taking the piss.
I know people like to look for any excuse to have a go at (the almost always entirely deserving!) GW, but that seems to be splitting hairs.
So if I sculpt a 3d rendition of the Mona Lisa, it's copying?
Well, you can pick widely used things like the Mona Lisa (probably the most heavily parodied image of all time) to try and dilute the point, but clearly, yes you are.
Obviously you are! If you made a 3D mona lisa, people would not say "thats a cool 3d model of a random bird" they would say "feth me, thats a great 3d Mona Lisa!"
Surely its a bit daft to say you can't infringe on an artwork if you make a model from a drawing?
That seems really silly. If I make a mini of a drawing, say Link from Legend of Zelda, and its identical to a drawing, thats obviously copyright infringement.
All minis start out as a drawing, I loved some of Mantics artworks, especially for their KOW kickstarter, If I got the artwork of their ogres, and then made an absolutely identical model and started selling it, I would hugely be taking the piss.
I know people like to look for any excuse to have a go at (the almost always entirely deserving!) GW, but that seems to be splitting hairs.
But copyright protects the EXPRESSION of an idea, not the idea in all forms. For all we know, the underside of the lizard in the 2d drawing is full of fur and genitalia, and the model(I assume) is not. We don't know because in 2d roughly 50% of the thing is not represented, and that 50% could be vastly different from what we assume it to be.
For all we know, the Mona Lisa has a wicked neck tattoo on the back of her neck which isn't shown. For all we know, she has a tail and horns. Perhaps she's a flat piece of paper that was drawn to look as if it were a portrait(I doubt with the Mona Lisa that is the case, but insert random 2d art and the point remains).
One cannot say that a 3d model is an exact replica of a 2d drawing. What about scale? Show me where in the drawing scale is shown. I see no points of reference.
I'm not saying that BWM has a solid defense, but this thing isn't as cut and dry as many think.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a derivative work to the extent that the sculptor has (presumably) taken the original drawing and interpreted it with a new pose, new weapon, and various new details of the anatomy of the base lizard.
The core idea of a lizard with a gun underneath is clearly the same.
Ideas are not protected by copyright, at all. So a work cannot be derivative if the only similarity it shares with the asserted work is a common idea. This is the fundamental confusion I am talking about.
To be derivative, a work must be a copy of the root work.
Derivative is the wrong word choice for me then. Inspired might be a better word. Clearly the model takes ideas from the drawing, but it changes details in a way that make it unique from the drawing.
And inspiration is not equal to infringement. Copyright provides the exclusive right to prevent other from making, displaying, etc. etc. copies of an author's original work of authorship. Original is an important term because that is where you get the concept of "protected expression." What did the author do that no one else did and that is not already in the public domain?
Using anything else is not appropriating "protected expression."
Kilkrazy wrote: It is a derivative work to the extent that the sculptor has (presumably) taken the original drawing and interpreted it with a new pose, new weapon, and various new details of the anatomy of the base lizard.
The core idea of a lizard with a gun underneath is clearly the same.
Ideas are not protected by copyright, at all. So a work cannot be derivative if the only similarity it shares with the asserted work is a common idea. This is the fundamental confusion I am talking about.
To be derivative, a work must be a copy of the root work.
Derivative is the wrong word choice for me then. Inspired might be a better word. Clearly the model takes ideas from the drawing, but it changes details in a way that make it unique from the drawing.
And inspiration is not equal to infringement. Copyright provides the exclusive right to prevent other from making, displaying, etc. etc. copies of an author's original work of authorship. Original is an important term because that is where you get the concept of "protected expression." What did the author do that no one else did and that is not already in the public domain?
Using anything else is not appropriating "protected expression."
So in essence, there is a huge difference between my photocopying something and selling it, and redrawing the same image myself and selling copies of that, legally speaking?
azreal13 wrote: So in essence, there is a huge difference between my photocopying something and selling it, and redrawing the same image myself and selling copies of that, legally speaking?
Only in the sense that a photocopy would be a rather faithful copy, so presumably proving copying would be relatively simple. However, "redrawing" something very well might be a copy. The question, as I have said, is whether the accused work unfairly appropriates protected expression.
Is the accused work substantially similar to that which is protectable in the asserted work? That's it, but you have to know what is and is not protectable, and depending on the work in question, protection could be very narrow. It could also be very broad.
Photographs are protected by copyright, in theory, right? So imagine all of the photographs of the Lincoln Memorial that are being sold. Each one is a protected work of art, as it should be. I don't care how common those photographs are, if I copy your photo and sell it, that is wrong. But, the scope of protection is on a practical level probably narrow almost to the point of literal, 100% duplication because the factors that a photographer can manipulate in such a circumstance are few and the number of extant photographs of the subject are numerous.
There are also a whole host of things that just don't reach the bar of protectability. For example, the US Copyright Office determined that GW's Space Marine shoulder pad design does not qualify for copyright protection under US law. But Judge Kennelly found the shoulder pad design to in fact be protectable. This is why these cases rarely go to trial. At the end of the day, it comes down to a very subjective interpretation. Judge Kennelly's shoulder pad ruling could get flipped on appeal, should the Defendant seek an appeal. It could get upheld. Upheld or not, another judge in another case could make a different decision.
By and by- where can I get some of those femal specters, and some gaunts ghosts?
I missed these gits the first time around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sidstyler wrote: GW have been playing IP bully for so long I find it hard to care whether they're in the right or not in this case. Maybe it is an infringement, I dunno, but seeing as how there's a mountain of bs ownership claims behind them I'm not too keen to take them seriously anymore.
And I don't really see the similarity between GW's GG model and BWM's "homage". Honest to god I can't even tell which one of the GW models this girl is supposed to be, the only thing that looks similar to me is her fething gun. I see no bare midriffs, I don't see anyone with that hairstyle, and I don't think you can sue because of a cloak. Are you sure any of these models are actually female?
+1 for this sentiment.
And as a second thought-
How do you use this model? Is it a solo, a squad, or a commander?
As much as I hate to admit it, I've never seen one like this.
What I'd like to see is gw winning this, to be honest. Them, then learning about what is 'legitimate' things to go for. Open season being declared by either sides of the 'copyright coin' wouldn't be cool.
Compel wrote: What I'd like to see is gw winning this, to be honest. Them, then learning about what is 'legitimate' things to go for. Open season being declared by either sides of the 'copyright coin' wouldn't be cool.
Not really.
Then they open up themselves for back pay for everyone else from Lucas films/ Disney, Marvel, DC, Heavy Metal magazine, Judge Dredds many evolutions from the 2000 AD lines, Every scifi movie and specific from Fox, Parmount, Soney, and... each and every one off that they've used since the company inception.
MGM, New Line, Funmation, hell, even Cox cable and the scifi channel could get in on some of that action.
Thing is that Sci fi gaming WAS once a homage sport. We used and use everything that we want to, make derivitave stuff and continue the process of evolving the work.
Like it or not, GW is a laughable facsimile of what they once were.
That earlier post on what THEY said about copies is stuff that they had to go through themselves, when TSR decided they wanted to go all out and start this gak. T.S.R. (They sue Regularly.)
White dwarf was once a game mag. They had everything in there, along with MOST of the same sort of 3d party content that they now decry and fail to realize that they arn't the big fish in the pont that they think they are.
I say Gak them. Keep them tied up in court until they die the death of a thousand cuts, or realize that they suck in thier treatment of the general public, gamers, and modelers.
Looks like a drawing I did when I was around five and thought Komodo Dragons were the coolest animal ever, coupled with Dino Riders being my most favorite toys. If only I'd have had the foresight to register my Kindergarten scribblings, I could have beat GW to the punch on their (at least in their view) Lizards with underslung guns monopoly.
In all seriousness though, I can see the resemblances. Still sucks for people that wanted the model and would have thrown some extra money to a smaller company to acquire it, or now, because of seeing this thread want the model, cause I admit, I still think Komodo Dragons are the coolest animal ever.
First, GW cares on this for one reason: They have figured out that a picture of a unit in a book does not preclude others from making that model BEFORE them. If they put out a picture of something without a model for sale, then a group creates a model that looks like it, then GW is screwed. If GW then produces that exact model they are open to being sued...
This basically means, GW needs to stop various people from creating models out of their artwork. Hence, IMHO, the reasons we have seen various shoulder pads and other minor bits being released. To protect their IP.
Next, you can't win a suit against someone who takes *your* picture and makes a model out of it. That's not protected. You *can* win if they take your artwork and basically photocopy it and call it their own; but that's not what has happened here.
In short, Blight Wheel has c**kblocked GW by producing that model. So, GW is trying to intimidate Blight into pulling it. Unless Blight has a decent lawyer who works for peanuts, they will.
First, GW cares on this for one reason: They have figured out that a picture of a unit in a book does not preclude others from making that model BEFORE them. If they put out a picture of something without a model for sale, then a group creates a model that looks like it, then GW is screwed. If GW then produces that exact model they are open to being sued...
This basically means, GW needs to stop various people from creating models out of their artwork. Hence, IMHO, the reasons we have seen various shoulder pads and other minor bits being released. To protect their IP.
Next, you can't win a suit against someone who takes *your* picture and makes a model out of it. That's not protected. You *can* win if they take your artwork and basically photocopy it and call it their own; but that's not what has happened here.
In short, Blight Wheel has c**kblocked GW by producing that model. So, GW is trying to intimidate Blight into pulling it. Unless Blight has a decent lawyer who works for peanuts, they will.
No, not really. Not really at all at all. First of all, Copyright is inherent, so first to market with something is immaterial.
Second, two miniatures that could be used to represent the same unit in a fictional game are potentially competing products. Products that compete do not block. They compete. Generally speaking, competition is a good thing.
Third, do you think that GW could actually be blocked by a miniature produced by a company the size of Blight Wheel?
Let's look at the possibilities here. So let's assume that the market for a Loxatl miniature is so small that Blight Wheel can, on its own, saturate that market completely. If that was the case, I don't think GW would be interested in producing a miniature that has a market in the low thousands. Perhaps this is why GW has produced no such product for a decade. In such a case, Blight Wheel gets to enjoy modest sales of a new product, the customer gets to enjoy a product that would otherwise not have existed, and the value of GW's complimentary products is increased. Blight Wheel wins, GW wins, and the customer wins.
Let's assume that such a model would be wildly popular, with tens or hundreds of thousand potential unit sales over many years. If that was the case, Blight Wheel could not meet such a demand. GW could easily create and sell a better, cheaper product and obliterate the majority of Blight Wheel's business, gobbling up the lion's share of the Loxatl market share. Competition would drive GW to create a better product at a competitive price. GW wins, the customer wins, and Blight Wheel could probably still find some market for its own miniature, and being a smaller, more nimble company not relying on high volume sales for profitability, could easily win as well.
Either way you look at it, GW wins, Blight Wheel wins, and the customer wins. Everybody wins.
When GW attempts to squash the product, nobody wins; not Blight Wheel, not GW, and not the customer.
Either way you look at it, GW wins, Blight Wheel wins, and the customer wins. Everybody wins.
When GW attempts to squash the product, nobody wins; not Blight Wheel, not GW, and not the customer.
The thing is, while I agree in principle, and I hate GWs militant lawyers, ultimately copyright exists for a reason, and its for a perfectly fair reason.
There's all kind of crap fence sitting gak in the world, whereby people say "Oh in an ideal world it would work like this..." but we don't live in an ideal world.
I feel the same way about socialism, I don't dislike the idea of those that can work paying to help those that can't, I just ignore it because It doesn't work in the real world and it never will. Its a system that gets abused, because vast swathes of the population have no integrity, so I regretfully vote conservative because its better to get some of the richest guys money than none of it.. same goes with people that are wired wrongly and kill kids, in the ideal world, we could rehabilitate them with brain surgery, give them jobs as high school caretakers and release them, but no, I say regretfully kill them if they can never be realsed. I dont revell in the death of mentally ill people, I just figure its pragmatic.
In the same sense, we can't have fluid, shifting sands copyright laws that boil down to common sense, because they need to be in black and white to be workable, and generally speaking IP laws are. They exist not just to help the big guys, but the little guys too.
Think about it, hardly anyone on here thinks that GW is in the right with many of their ridiculous IP claims, I certainly don't like their ridiculous attitude, but its pretty much a case of what we have now, or nothing, unworkable idealism and wishing the world were different wont get us anywhere.
But in this instance, the fact of the matter is, that model IS a total, 100% of copy of a GW drawing, generally speaking, you can't do gak like that, and you can't say that its ok. If this wasn't a model, if it was your mother drawing a picture of a really cool car, and then a big ass company saw her drawing, photocopied it and then made the car, exactly as it was drawn, she would have been ripped off, and should be able to pursue the case legally, she would be getting ripped off by a big nasty company who stole her idea, and then make money off her toil. Surely the principle is the exact same?
If you designed a machine to recharge normal batteries, and Duracell hired a guy to rob you so they could mass produce it and give you nothing, they would be breaking the law.
As much as we all despise many of GWs actions, surely we despise hypocrisy more? And as a result, dislike them as I do, in this instance, you can't really say they are massively in the wrong because the model is almost a direct port, unless we are willing to practice staggering hypocrisy.
And I might not like corporate GW, but I dislike hypocrisy more, this idea that we really like minis so we should be allowed them all.
Unfortunately, I side with Mr Kirby and his flying monkeys on this one.
1: the model is not a total, 100% copy. That is literally impossible.
2: I am not making a judgement about what is right under the law here. What I am saying is that, right or wrong legally, it does not make good business sense for GW to go after Blight Wheel like this, and at the end of the day it hurts the customer.
GW could have done any number of things to assert its rights. GW could have offered BW a limited license to produce the miniature, for example.
This is a cannon being used to kill a mosquito, and we are taking the brunt of the collateral damage. And GW very well may not actually have standing in this instance.
For example, CHS is allowed to produce more than 40 different products because GW could not substantiate a claim, probably on threshold issues. GW may not even own the asserted artwork. Nor is it a foregone conclusion that the accused work is actually a copy of the asserted work.
GW's IP enforcement policy is scorched earth chemical warfare. GW does not care what the rules are. GW does not care what the law is. GW does not care about the impact its actions have on its customers, the industry it operates in, the broader market, nor about the legitimate rights of authors and artists.
Regardless of the arguably close similarity between the two works, this is not an example of GW moderating its treatment of intellectual property rights. This is another instance in a well-developed pattern of behavior that has, literally, been shown to fly in the face of both the letter and spirit of the law. Do not forget that GW's lawyer was sanctioned for withholding discoverable documents and making a misstatement in a sworn affidavit.
What did GW's lawyer withhold? COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE US COPYRIGHT OFFICE! Communications directly relevant to...GW's assertions of its intellectual property rights!
Do not forget also that GW has repeatedly attempted to bamboozle artists into giving up rights to their own works of art. Gark Chalk swore an affidavit that in spite of the fact that GW told him that GW already owned rights to his work of art, he had never in fact given up such rights to GW. And, of course, GW's lawyer failed to mention to defense counsel that GW had been communicating with Mr. Chalk.
Hell, the C&D itself may even expose GW to liability given its wording and the manner in which it was delivered.
It is not a fact that the BW miniature is a 100% literal copy of the asserted drawing. It is not a fact that it is even a copy. What I have described above are facts. What I have described above is neither speculation nor embellishment. What I have described above is the way that GW has behaved with respect to the law and the rights of artists.
Do GW's rights deserve respect, absolutely. Does GW respect the rights of artists, even its own artists? No.
1: the model is not a total, 100% copy. That is literally impossible.
2: I am not making a judgement about what is right under the law here. What I am saying is that, right or wrong legally, it does not make good business sense for GW to go after Blight Wheel like this, and at the end of the day it hurts the customer.
Yeah I agree with much of what you say, as I said, I'm not really sticking up for GW, i'm just saying the system used for IP does need to be there, and this seems to be a pretty cut and shut case of copying someone else work, I'm not even saying they should necessarily pursue it because gak, they can afford it, I'm just saying its kinda hypocritical to not concede the point.
Think of it this way, If you came up with the idea, and asked me to draw it, would we be annoyed if GW saw our gun toting giant reptile and made the model without even giving us a mention?
I certainly would, we must if we have any integrity say that they are entitled to act similarly right? Even if they do appear to be a somewhat evil corporation with militant nazi lawyers?
Just regards your two numbered points
1. Its as near as dammit, surely you agree that BW had obviously seen the picture in question and modelled their mini after it?
2. I agree with you. GW are far too militant with their IP, but as I said above, they do have the right to stop this production, even if we disagree with it, don't you think that to say anything else is hypocritical?
BryllCream wrote: He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.
He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.
There really is nothing we can say to you is there?
BryllCream wrote: He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.
He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.
That's sarcasm?
It has to be sarcasm right?
Please be aware that your position appears so ludicrous in so many GW discussions that a convenient illustration of when you're actually joking is needed.
If its serious, then congrats on further undermining the credibility of your minority viewpoint.
There was a pretty good article a few years ago in the Business Law Journal that I recall. My lawyer pointed it out to me, as our discussions around IP issues often pivoted around these issues (he tended to favor a more aggressive stance than I did...).
1: the model is not a total, 100% copy. That is literally impossible.
2: I am not making a judgement about what is right under the law here. What I am saying is that, right or wrong legally, it does not make good business sense for GW to go after Blight Wheel like this, and at the end of the day it hurts the customer.
Yeah I agree with much of what you say, as I said, I'm not really sticking up for GW, i'm just saying the system used for IP does need to be there, and this seems to be a pretty cut and shut case of copying someone else work, I'm not even saying they should necessarily pursue it because gak, they can afford it, I'm just saying its kinda hypocritical to not concede the point.
Think of it this way, If you came up with the idea, and asked me to draw it, would we be annoyed if GW saw our gun toting giant reptile and made the model without even giving us a mention?
I certainly would, we must if we have any integrity say that they are entitled to act similarly right? Even if they do appear to be a somewhat evil corporation with militant nazi lawyers?
Just regards your two numbered points
1. Its as near as dammit, surely you agree that BW had obviously seen the picture in question and modelled their mini after it?
2. I agree with you. GW are far too militant with their IP, but as I said above, they do have the right to stop this production, even if we disagree with it, don't you think that to say anything else is hypocritical?
That is sort of a problem with the existing laws though...they may have seen the picture (probably) and may have modeled the miniature after it (probably) but still not be in the wrong. The image itself uses a lot of generic things, and a couple of unique things. The generic things are protected only as much as making "exact copies"... If I were to take the image and blow it up to poster size and sell on eBay...that would be a clear violation of the copyright no matter how generic it might be. The unique things can be protected provided that they are unique enough.
For example, the belly mounted gun is a somewhat unique idea...however, the idea can not be protected. Other companies can do lizard miniatures with belly mounted guns all they want. The protected aspect would be the very specific rendering of the gun used by GW in their image. Without having a figure to examine in detail or high resolution pictures to see the specific details of the figure - it is hard to make that determination.
A lot of people get too tied up in the concept and think that that is important - but every countries copyright laws that I have looked into make a clear distinction between ideas and the execution of those ideas. The number of differences between the GW drawing and the BW miniature could very well be enough to distinguish between the two as two distinct representations of the same idea.
1. Its as near as dammit, surely you agree that BW had obviously seen the picture in question and modelled their mini after it?
2. I agree with you. GW are far too militant with their IP, but as I said above, they do have the right to stop this production, even if we disagree with it, don't you think that to say anything else is hypocritical?
As to your first point, it would be inappropriate conjecture to say either way. We do not know what the facts are. Do I feel there is enough similarity that an inference of access can be made? Absolutely yes. But that is neither an opinion as to infringement nor would such an inference preclude the rebuttal of said inference.
As to your second point, again, I feel that you are going to far, just as when you said that the BW miniature was a 100% copy, which is simply impossible. GW has a right to original works of authorship that it owns. And GW should be free to assert its exclusive rights to make copies of original works of authorship that it owns.
That is a much different sentiment from "[GW has] the right to stop this production." IF the BW miniature is a copy of a work of art that GW owns, THEN yes GW has a right to stop its production. But it is inappropriate to come to such fact-intensive legal conclusions without having the relevant facts.
For example, with a similar sort of conjecture based on known facts, one could say that GW does not have a right to assert works of art that it does not own. One could say that knowingly asserting such non-existent rights gives Blight Wheel the right to receive damages from GW.
That conjecture is as inappropriate as yours. So no, I do not think avoiding conjecture is hypocrisy.
What IS hypocrisy is GW vigorously asserting its own alleged rights when it does not similarly respect the same rights possessed by other artists.
Should GW be allowed to assert its rights? Yes. Would me saying GW is not allowed to assert its rights be hypocritical? Yes. Is it nevertheless hypocritical for GW to aggressively assert its rights? Yes. But saying that it is hypocritical is not the same as saying GW is barred from doing so.
1: the model is not a total, 100% copy. That is literally impossible.
2: I am not making a judgement about what is right under the law here. What I am saying is that, right or wrong legally, it does not make good business sense for GW to go after Blight Wheel like this, and at the end of the day it hurts the customer.
Yeah I agree with much of what you say, as I said, I'm not really sticking up for GW, i'm just saying the system used for IP does need to be there, and this seems to be a pretty cut and shut case of copying someone else work, I'm not even saying they should necessarily pursue it because gak, they can afford it, I'm just saying its kinda hypocritical to not concede the point.
Think of it this way, If you came up with the idea, and asked me to draw it, would we be annoyed if GW saw our gun toting giant reptile and made the model without even giving us a mention?
I certainly would, we must if we have any integrity say that they are entitled to act similarly right? Even if they do appear to be a somewhat evil corporation with militant nazi lawyers?
Just regards your two numbered points
1. Its as near as dammit, surely you agree that BW had obviously seen the picture in question and modelled their mini after it?
2. I agree with you. GW are far too militant with their IP, but as I said above, they do have the right to stop this production, even if we disagree with it, don't you think that to say anything else is hypocritical?
1. It is not "near as dammit", it is similar in some respects. The only even slightly unique aspect of the GW Loxatl concept is the torso-mounted shooting weapon, and it could be argued that an underslung or back-mounted weapon would be the only logical way for a quadrupedal creature to carry a ranged weapon given its natural method of locomotion. The core idea of a space lizard in a sci-fi setting is not even remotely original, and any similarities between the Blight Wheel mini has to the GW artwork could be argued away as necessarily proceeding from the original concept, or being due to their both drawing elements from the same limited pool of real-life creatures used as reference by the artists. But even if we put all that aside and accept your basic premise that the Blight Wheel sculptor literally sat down to make their model with the GW artwork in front of them, weeble has already pointed out to you that they are still not necessarily guilty of infringement, or even of "copying" in the legal sense; the BWM miniature has different appendages, its legs are in different positions, the BWM mini is moving along a horizontal plane while the GW artwork has the creature attached vertically to a wall, and beyond those things both miniature and artwork share many aspects in common with real lizards, which makes such aspects protectable in neither case.
2. Actually, weeble seems to me to have been arguing that GW may very well not have a right to stop this production at all, and that if they do that should be determined in a court of law by experts, not by people on forums making their "common sense innit guv" judgements, and not by GW's downright sleazy attempts to bully people with threatening letters, letters which may themselves be in breach of good legal practice.
Also, I will ask you to please refrain from bringing real-life political arguments into discussions like this, even as comparison, because it's bloody unfair to throw your own entirely arguable viewpoints out there as factual knowing that the rest of us are unable to respond to you without dragging the thread off-topic and risking mod censure.
1: the model is not a total, 100% copy. That is literally impossible.
2: I am not making a judgement about what is right under the law here. What I am saying is that, right or wrong legally, it does not make good business sense for GW to go after Blight Wheel like this, and at the end of the day it hurts the customer.
Yeah I agree with much of what you say, as I said, I'm not really sticking up for GW, i'm just saying the system used for IP does need to be there, and this seems to be a pretty cut and shut case of copying someone else work, I'm not even saying they should necessarily pursue it because gak, they can afford it, I'm just saying its kinda hypocritical to not concede the point.
Think of it this way, If you came up with the idea, and asked me to draw it, would we be annoyed if GW saw our gun toting giant reptile and made the model without even giving us a mention?
I certainly would, we must if we have any integrity say that they are entitled to act similarly right? Even if they do appear to be a somewhat evil corporation with militant nazi lawyers?
Just regards your two numbered points
1. Its as near as dammit, surely you agree that BW had obviously seen the picture in question and modelled their mini after it?
2. I agree with you. GW are far too militant with their IP, but as I said above, they do have the right to stop this production, even if we disagree with it, don't you think that to say anything else is hypocritical?
1. It is not "near as dammit", it is similar in some respects. The only even slightly unique aspect of the GW Loxatl concept is the torso-mounted shooting weapon, and it could be argued that an underslung or back-mounted weapon would be the only logical way for a quadrupedal creature to carry a ranged weapon given its natural method of locomotion. The core idea of a space lizard in a sci-fi setting is not even remotely original, and any similarities between the Blight Wheel mini has to the GW artwork could be argued away as necessarily proceeding from the original concept, or being due to their both drawing elements from the same limited pool of real-life creatures used as reference by the artists. But even if we put all that aside and accept your basic premise that the Blight Wheel sculptor literally sat down to make their model with the GW artwork in front of them, weeble has already pointed out to you that they are still not necessarily guilty of infringement, or even of "copying" in the legal sense; the BWM miniature has different appendages, its legs are in different positions, the BWM mini is moving along a horizontal plane while the GW artwork has the creature attached vertically to a wall, and beyond those things both miniature and artwork share many aspects in common with real lizards, which makes such aspects protectable in neither case.
2. Actually, weeble seems to me to have been arguing that GW may very well not have a right to stop this production at all, and that if they do that should be determined in a court of law by experts, not by people on forums making their "common sense innit guv" judgements, and not by GW's downright sleazy attempts to bully people with threatening letters, letters which may themselves be in breach of good legal practice.
Also, I will ask you to please refrain from bringing real-life political arguments into discussions like this, even as comparison, because it's bloody unfair to throw your own entirely arguable viewpoints out there as factual knowing that the rest of us are unable to respond to you without dragging the thread off-topic and risking mod censure.
1. Oh come on, how does life work if not simply by evidence? How does any court case work? We don't go "Oh sure it looks like that bloke stabbed that woman to death, and here is X Y Z evidence, but sorry, we didn't actually sit there and watch it take place, so let not have an opinion either way and forget about it.
All we have is an educated guess, and in this case It's clearly not merely "a little bit similar"
2. What on earth is a forum for if not "common sense innit guv" its for random people to discuss things. If you only want to let "experts" discuss anything, why are you even here? If someone posts a photo of their new hairstyle do we all have to be trained barbers to have an opinion?
No doubt you are happy with "common sense innit guv" if said random civilian with no professional qualifications entirely agrees with you though eh?
And once again, I am against GWs IP lawyers in 90% of cases, I want CH to crush them in their litigation, I am simply stating an opinion, that this case does indeed look like a pretty obvious case of seeing some GW material and making a model off said drawing.
As to your points about using our own real life arguments, how else do you draw an analogy? If that, or simply having an opinion on something without being involved in the industry makes you so uncomfortable, why on earth do you bother coming to a public discussion forum at all?
Those would actually be pretty cool for a race of aliens to ally with Tau models.
Even as is, these would be pretty boss. I have about three other projects I can see these in. Pulp City, Judge Dredd, and Superfigs.
I missed out on them in the KS, but after i dug them back up, i really do want a few for some Superhero gaming I'm working on at the moment.
And they kick the IP out of the space lizard
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BryllCream wrote: He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.
He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.
This IS wargaming miniatures figures we are talking about, right?
How can you be sick of it, GW doesn't make this creature, nor do I see any semblence of them anywhere else.
Aliens, Star Wars, the Dirty Dozen, Rambo, the army of Commando knock offs, etc, etc, etc....
Take a break from your brightly bleach dented armor, and dig back into White Dwarves of the past and bask in the glory of what once was.....
Great link by the way Grot. I love all the old covers, It reminds me of when I first picked up a FF game book in the eighties and got started on the hobby from there.
1: the model is not a total, 100% copy. That is literally impossible.
2: I am not making a judgement about what is right under the law here. What I am saying is that, right or wrong legally, it does not make good business sense for GW to go after Blight Wheel like this, and at the end of the day it hurts the customer.
Yeah I agree with much of what you say, as I said, I'm not really sticking up for GW, i'm just saying the system used for IP does need to be there, and this seems to be a pretty cut and shut case of copying someone else work, I'm not even saying they should necessarily pursue it because gak, they can afford it, I'm just saying its kinda hypocritical to not concede the point.
Think of it this way, If you came up with the idea, and asked me to draw it, would we be annoyed if GW saw our gun toting giant reptile and made the model without even giving us a mention?
I certainly would, we must if we have any integrity say that they are entitled to act similarly right? Even if they do appear to be a somewhat evil corporation with militant nazi lawyers?
Just regards your two numbered points
1. Its as near as dammit, surely you agree that BW had obviously seen the picture in question and modelled their mini after it?
2. I agree with you. GW are far too militant with their IP, but as I said above, they do have the right to stop this production, even if we disagree with it, don't you think that to say anything else is hypocritical?
1. It is not "near as dammit", it is similar in some respects. The only even slightly unique aspect of the GW Loxatl concept is the torso-mounted shooting weapon, and it could be argued that an underslung or back-mounted weapon would be the only logical way for a quadrupedal creature to carry a ranged weapon given its natural method of locomotion. The core idea of a space lizard in a sci-fi setting is not even remotely original, and any similarities between the Blight Wheel mini has to the GW artwork could be argued away as necessarily proceeding from the original concept, or being due to their both drawing elements from the same limited pool of real-life creatures used as reference by the artists. But even if we put all that aside and accept your basic premise that the Blight Wheel sculptor literally sat down to make their model with the GW artwork in front of them, weeble has already pointed out to you that they are still not necessarily guilty of infringement, or even of "copying" in the legal sense; the BWM miniature has different appendages, its legs are in different positions, the BWM mini is moving along a horizontal plane while the GW artwork has the creature attached vertically to a wall, and beyond those things both miniature and artwork share many aspects in common with real lizards, which makes such aspects protectable in neither case.
2. Actually, weeble seems to me to have been arguing that GW may very well not have a right to stop this production at all, and that if they do that should be determined in a court of law by experts, not by people on forums making their "common sense innit guv" judgements, and not by GW's downright sleazy attempts to bully people with threatening letters, letters which may themselves be in breach of good legal practice.
Also, I will ask you to please refrain from bringing real-life political arguments into discussions like this, even as comparison, because it's bloody unfair to throw your own entirely arguable viewpoints out there as factual knowing that the rest of us are unable to respond to you without dragging the thread off-topic and risking mod censure.
1. Oh come on, how does life work if not simply by evidence? How does any court case work? We don't go "Oh sure it looks like that bloke stabbed that woman to death, and here is X Y Z evidence, but sorry, we didn't actually sit there and watch it take place, so let not have an opinion either way and forget about it.
All we have is an educated guess, and in this case It's clearly not merely "a little bit similar"
2. What on earth is a forum for if not "common sense innit guv" its for random people to discuss things. If you only want to let "experts" discuss anything, why are you even here? If someone posts a photo of their new hairstyle do we all have to be trained barbers to have an opinion?
No doubt you are happy with "common sense innit guv" if said random civilian with no professional qualifications entirely agrees with you though eh?
And once again, I am against GWs IP lawyers in 90% of cases, I want CH to crush them in their litigation, I am simply stating an opinion, that this case does indeed look like a pretty obvious case of seeing some GW material and making a model off said drawing.
As to your points about using our own real life arguments, how else do you draw an analogy? If that, or simply having an opinion on something without being involved in the industry makes you so uncomfortable, why on earth do you bother coming to a public discussion forum at all?
1. We're not talking about life, we're talking about a specific set of legal arguments which have defined limits on applicability, and whether or not those arguments apply in this case. This has been pointed out to you several times already; two things can be very similar, but still not be similar enough in a legal context for one to infringe upon the other. If the basic concept is "armed quadrupedal lizard in a sci-fi setting", the question is are there any elements of the BWM miniature which are both A; the same as in the artwork based on the concept by GW, and also B; are not required by the original concept, and do not come from other non-protectable sources. You continue to argue that because "they look the same" the miniature must be infringing upon the artwork, but it doesn't matter if "they look the same" if the original concept is a trope or otherwise generic, and the elements which are similar are drawn from real-life sources(actual lizards) or proceed logically and inescapably from the original concept.
2. You put forward your opinion as being the only obvious conclusion that anyone could reach, and that we shouldn't criticise GW for their actions because their actions are obviously justified; what weeble appears to have been saying, and what I was attempting(apparently fruitlessly) to explain to you is that the situation is nowhere near that clear-cut, and that there is a fair argument that GW should be criticised for their actions, but most importantly that we certainly shouldn't be making any actual judgements of the rightness of either party because the only place such judgements can be rendered appropriately is in court when all the facts are available.
And we'll add 3. How else do you draw an analogy? With some tact. A good first step is to not draw analogies you know nobody can question the validity of without dragging the thread miles off-topic, risking that it be closed and the respondent would face mod action. Another useful idea is to not present extremely questionable -opinions- as factual statements. For example, you could easily have presented exactly the same point that you did in generic terms, by discussing "utopian political ideology", or a preference for pragmatism over idealism, without bringing up specific examples which might elicit a dispute with someone who disagrees with your presentation of those examples.
Yodhrin wrote: 2. You put forward your opinion as being the only obvious conclusion that anyone could reach, and that we shouldn't criticise GW for their actions because their actions are obviously justified
No I don't. I have stated numerous times that I hugely disagree with GWs IP policy en-masse, my point is merely that this one instance seems more clear cut, it is perfectly logical that the model was made with that picture in mind. I also agreed with Wee that its probably pointless to get lawyers involved over such a small issue. I agree entirely, I simply said that it seems to be hypocritical of us all to be so judgemental about GW, but not attempt to see things from their POV when the case in question is more obvious.
How else do you draw an analogy? With some tact. A good first step is to not draw analogies you know nobody can question the validity of without dragging the thread miles off-topic........
Have you actually been into a pub and discussed a topical issue face to face with people in such a ridiculously roundabout manner? A professor once told me that you should never make something more complicated than necessary when you are speaking to an audience, so why do so here? You and I are not Ed Miliband and David Cameron, were two blokes talking about minis, there is no need to make things more complicated than they need to be.
There is also the obvious point that you are now dragging the thread miles off topic with this somewhat petty point, so lets simply draw a line under it, and I'll reiterate that I think that this is one of the more palatable forms of cease and desist letters that GW has pulled lately, but pay more attention to what I wrote, because I fully agree with what most of GW critics say, I share their/your view, I was simply pointing out that we should see both sides of copyright issues or risk being staggeringly hypocritical. Surely you must see that? If a GW mini looks heaps like a video game model for example (has happened plenty of times) you would no doubt be vocal in saying "lol! they clearly ripped that off!" and no doubt you wouldn't say it "tactfully" you would voice a perfectly valid opinion openly and honestly.
Basically, I am definitely more of a GW hater than a GW lover, but I still try to sit on the fence and see things logically (objectively) and I feel that many posters in here are simply another side of the white knight coin. The fact is, GW deserve heaps of the gak they get, but many people are far too swift to condemn GW on this issue. 90% of their IP letters are ridiculously petty, but not all of them, and many fair minded observers will say the same thing. Im not even arguing that they should have sent a C&D letter, I mean, what harm can such a small production cause anyway?
I understand it, I'm just saying it seems pretty fair for GW to presume that BW did make that mini from the illustration in a GW book in this instance.
All Blight Wheel have done is to take the idea of a Lizard in Spaaace! and do a 3D rendition of it. Every single one of the details in the BH model is different to the GW pic.
If you accept the principle that you can't copyright an idea, then there is nothing wrong with what BW have done.
If you don't accept that idea, GW pinched the Lizards in Spaaace! idea from other sources anyway and have no moral or legal right to deny it to anyone else.
Kilkrazy wrote: All Blight Wheel have done is to take the idea of a Lizard in Spaaace! and do a 3D rendition of it. Every single one of the details in the BH model is different to the GW pic.
If you accept the principle that you can't copyright an idea, then there is nothing wrong with what BW have done.
If you don't accept that idea, GW pinched the Lizards in Spaaace! idea from other sources anyway and have no moral or legal right to deny it to anyone else.
Not so, I accept the principle that you can't really copyright an idea, because lizards in space is such an obvious thing that has many numerous renditions, but I don't accept that whoever sculpted that model didn't do it after seeing that image and made it accordingly, or that GWs most vocal crititcs wouldnt be throwing all kinda of gak at GW if the roles were reversed.
How can you say that every single one of the details is different from the pic?! Its as close an interpretation as any i've seen from concept to model!
This for example.
There is a big difference between making a similar idea, and fully sculpting someone elses drawings surely? You can't seriously believe that the model in question was made without the sculptor seeing the GW drawing? If someone just said to me "sculpt a mini of a space lizard with guns" it would look feth all like the GW picture, its a stretch to think it was merely coincidence.
And I will reiterate before people jump straight back onto to my back by the way, I fully believe that GW has done this in reverse many times, and that is my point. When GW steal other peoples ideas and sculpt them, we all love to come on here and go "aha!" I've seen loads of threads about it! People post threads with all these video game tanks, and cartoon SF knights and go "clearly GW stole this idea off them" so how is it not simply petty for us to ignore that it happens both ways? You cant criticize GW for doing it because you hate the company, and then not criticize other companies for doing it if you are even attempting to stay fair minded about proceedings surely?
BryllCream wrote: He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.
He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.
That's sarcasm?
It has to be sarcasm right?
Please be aware that your position appears so ludicrous in so many GW discussions that a convenient illustration of when you're actually joking is needed.
If its serious, then congrats on further undermining the credibility of your minority viewpoint.
9 times out of 10, if a large company sends a scary letter to a small business, the small business gives in. It's not like this single miniature is a cornerstone of their company, just give it up.
Whether or not GW are legitimate in demanding this, I don't know.
Coming from a the position of me being both an artist, and one who contracts out to other artists while making my own game, that guy is outright stealing the concept.
People need to understand that it costs time and money to just design these concepts.
It's not just some monkey in the back room drawing away and paid in bananas. It takes a lot of time and money to build the expertise to be a concept artist, then find jobs and get paid to create. The work that a concept artist creates isn't some magical thing that belongs to everyone the moment it's created.
This isn't just some small man versus big corporation deal, this is a guy who knowingly stole a concept.
People can say it's a grey area, going between mediums and all that BS, but this sculptor stole work from a fellow artist and is passing it off as his own.
He is creatively bankrupt, not to mention morally bankrupt.
This is just a situation of two evils, one being the lesser one, but certainly not good.
Vertrucio wrote: Coming from a the position of me being both an artist, and one who contracts out to other artists while making my own game, that guy is outright stealing the concept.
People need to understand that it costs time and money to just design these concepts.
It's not just some monkey in the back room drawing away and paid in bananas. It takes a lot of time and money to build the expertise to be a concept artist, then find jobs and get paid to create. The work that a concept artist creates isn't some magical thing that belongs to everyone the moment it's created.
This isn't just some small man versus big corporation deal, this is a guy who knowingly stole a concept.
People can say it's a grey area, going between mediums and all that BS, but this sculptor stole work from a fellow artist and is passing it off as his own.
He is creatively bankrupt, not to mention morally bankrupt.
This is just a situation of two evils, one being the lesser one, but certainly not good.
Pretty much what I was saying, although you do it more vehemently.
The blokes who are saying its "debateable" have clearly not looked at the same picture that we have. I'm not friend of GW, but this instance is flagrantly taking the slash in my eyes. Perhaps its because I draw a lot and try to be creative as you do, and we see that side of the argument. I'm not even saying its that big a deal though, I'm pointing out that we regularly haul GW over the coals for stealing other ideas, so we should at least retain some credibility by pointing out when it has actually happened to them.
I don't care about GW as the corporate entity, but If I was the artist who drew that picture, I would be psised off on an individual level. Its my work and my effort that a sculptor has copied, and I get no credit.
Its not just a space lizard with a gun, its my particular space lizard that I worked hard to create. In the same way that there are literally hundreds of designs for giant bipedal man robots that don't look identical to Optimus Prime, he should have drawn his own friggin..er.. lazer beam on the head, bandolier wearing space reptile.
Another aspect is to stop being childish and think that every action GW does is some terrible slight against you and everything you believe in.
I don't like most of what GW does, but that doesn't mean they're not legally and morally justified to do certain actions, and this is one of them.
GW paid good money, and their artists spent a lot of hard working time to come up with this concept.
When doing conceptual design, the artists goes through a long painstaking process, often drawing hundreds of variations to come up with the one concept that is decided on and eventually shown to the public.
Lastly, all that sculptor had to do was just be a bit creative, and he could have avoided this whole mess. Just change up the positions of equipment, adjust the proportions a bit, change major details and voila, a design that he can't be sued for this. And yet, he didn't do that and now people are jumping to his defense over his own sloppy work ethic?
Good design actually takes creativity and skill to make the final product look right, even if you're basing it off the style of someone else. That's the sort of thing that a concept artist takes a lifetime getting good at. A lifetime of hard work and money for education, supplies, and living.
If you want to have miniatures that look good, you either get good at design, or you contract or license to someone who can do that part for you. Don't play the small business card when you goof up, do your due diligence and contract work out, those artists out there can certainly use the money.
What's worse, I've got some awesome stuff for my game waiting in the wings, but I can't show it because of actions like this. But I can say that every artist I've worked with has produced awesome work, that is going to make people take interest, and has been paid fairly for it.
BryllCream wrote: He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.
He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.
That's sarcasm?
It has to be sarcasm right?
Please be aware that your position appears so ludicrous in so many GW discussions that a convenient illustration of when you're actually joking is needed.
If its serious, then congrats on further undermining the credibility of your minority viewpoint.
9 times out of 10, if a large company sends a scary letter to a small business, the small business gives in. It's not like this single miniature is a cornerstone of their company, just give it up.
Whether or not GW are legitimate in demanding this, I don't know.
I'm sorry, I don't see how that response connects with my reply or your original comment?
Wow, I never thought that I would agree with BryllCream and mattrym. I am surprised that more people in the thread do not see their point. The sculpture was not an accident. It was derived from the GW picture. Just google space lizard and see what comes up. The pictures look nothing like the GW one. The blight wheel one is much too similar to be a coincidence.
spaceelf wrote: Wow, I never thought that I would agree with BryllCream and mattrym. I am surprised that more people in the thread do not see their point. The sculpture was not an accident. It was derived from the GW picture. Just google space lizard and see what comes up. The pictures look nothing like the GW one. The blight wheel one is much too similar to be a coincidence.
I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't agree that it is almost definitely completely inspired by the drawing.
The disagreements are:
Whether it legally, not logically, is enough of a copy to support a GW prosecution.
Whether GW is right to pursue these sort of litigations, when it would arguably be better for the consumer and the industry as a whole just to leave them be unless they actively plan something similar.
Whether or not GW is right to pursue these suits when they are so horrendously obviously guilty of doing similar.
Whether GW wouldn't be better served getting their own house in order and addressing the issues between a significant portion of their target audience and themselves, rather than wasting resources on this.
Factor in the general negative reaction people will have towards perceived bullying tactics and the natural desire of many to root for the underdog, and voila, this thread.
Nobody is arguing that it doesn't look a LOT like the picture.
spaceelf wrote: Wow, I never thought that I would agree with BryllCream and mattrym. I am surprised that more people in the thread do not see their point. The sculpture was not an accident. It was derived from the GW picture. Just google space lizard and see what comes up. The pictures look nothing like the GW one. The blight wheel one is much too similar to be a coincidence.
I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't agree that it is almost definitely completely inspired by the drawing.
Nobody is arguing that it doesn't look a LOT like the picture.
Kilkrazy: Every single one of the details in the BH model is different to the GW pic.
Plenty are mate, see above. My point was entirely that, because I agree that it is a grey area, I agree that GW tend to be militant mother fethers, and I agree that they would probably be better off sorting their own lives out rather than bullying tiny companies, but the whole point of my post was that some people on this site really don't see things in a fair minded manner, and its terribly hypocritical to slate GW for copying things off other companies (they obviously do) and then not concede the point when it happens to them.
Thats the crux of my argument, I'm not even saying they should be forced to pull the model or that GW don't play dirty, I'm just saying you have to be seriously biased to not see that the model in question wasn't produced after seeing GWs work.
I seem to be interpreting what Killkrazy said differently.
As you can't copyright an idea, and there's not anything particularly unique about a large lizard, and as its a 2D to 3D translation, there is no basis for arguing about pose, it's the details that, legally speaking, the battle would be won or lost on. Now, if the specifics of say, the gun, are not exactly the same on the sculpt as they are in the artwork, then, legally, there's not much of a case.
What's logical and what's legal being two entirely separate concepts at this point.
What's logical and what's legal being two entirely separate concepts at this point.
Indeed, I agree entirely, and that was the point of my first post. I don't think we have a perfect system, but one needs to be in place. I certainly don't excuse GWs heavy handed lawyers in general though.
I'm with mattrym on this one: but even though I do think GW has a claim, anything they do to defend their IP will put them in hot waters due to recent events (Chapterhouse, Spots). I think they do have a stake on this and they have a legitimate(ish) claim, but that doesn't mean they should defend it.
I would like to call it The Boy Who Cried Wolf status. GW has been crying "Wolf! Wolf!" on anything that people won't side with them when the real thing comes.
Although one could argue that the similarities are not defendable, as Sean_OBrien pointed out. Now I'm not an expert on IP so I'll leave that thing to you. The point still stands--even if GW is right, defending their right might be the wrong move here.
GW built thier company on the exact sort of thing. Now they get all high and mighty when someone else is drinking from the same trough.
Had they sold it, this would be a different conversation. BUT.... They didn't. This sculpt is the same as 95-99% of the same that is already out there and been done time and time again.
Cry about shameless rip-offs, GW having the right to copywrite the letters G and W, and everything else, but this stuff here, lizards and all is part in parcel of the real hobby of wargaming.
Or are you going to go goo-goo about this, but each and every thing GW has done is fine? They do this ALL THE TIME. To make it even worse, they are at the point now where even if they want to get all D-bag over it, anyone getting this sort of treatment can just pull out the GW D-Bag book of ill-fated law suits, and claim a counter suit for harrassment as a reason to stifle the market, and claim that GW is trying to monopolise the market. Leave them in court for years, if they really wanted to...
Yeah, to you starvng artists- You don't actually think that you get an open pitty party, just because you don't agree with it, I hope. This is tabletop wargaming. You don't get an open invite to decry the figures, just because you don't like the fact that someone did a better job then you. If the issue of the sculpt is that its a copy, then so what? The hobby is wargaming. Come up with better, and the market will decide. Point of fact, DriveThruRPG's full of material to back that statement up. The so called "Industry" is full of examples. If people don't like it, they won't buy.
As to the issue of GW, they have lost more good-will then they will ever know. At this point, they could be 110% in the right, but they won't get anyone but thier white knights and fanboies to even give them the time of day. I've already pointed to the fact, and it's been shown on an earlier page by someone else, how "Good Old" GW thinks of "Copywrites".
They can cry all they want, but as much as they have shafted the same community that they call Plebes, minions, and worse, They can stay on thier high horse and trample every tom, dick, and harry who puts resin, plastic, and metal to the table.
End of the day? The sculpt is going to be in some hands, not in others, and the price for it will increase because it is "The one GW once crushed on this company over and made a big deal about, now instead of paying the obiquitous $80.00- you can buy it for $110.00.
spaceelf wrote: Wow, I never thought that I would agree with BryllCream and mattrym. I am surprised that more people in the thread do not see their point. The sculpture was not an accident. It was derived from the GW picture. Just google space lizard and see what comes up. The pictures look nothing like the GW one. The blight wheel one is much too similar to be a coincidence.
I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't agree that it is almost definitely completely inspired by the drawing.
Nobody is arguing that it doesn't look a LOT like the picture.
Kilkrazy: Every single one of the details in the BH model is different to the GW pic.
Plenty are mate, see above. My point was entirely that, because I agree that it is a grey area, I agree that GW tend to be militant mother fethers, and I agree that they would probably be better off sorting their own lives out rather than bullying tiny companies, but the whole point of my post was that some people on this site really don't see things in a fair minded manner, and its terribly hypocritical to slate GW for copying things off other companies (they obviously do) and then not concede the point when it happens to them.
Thats the crux of my argument, I'm not even saying they should be forced to pull the model or that GW don't play dirty, I'm just saying you have to be seriously biased to not see that the model in question wasn't produced after seeing GWs work.
I said earlier in the thread that the sculpture clearly is derivative (not necessarily in a legal sense) of the picture. That does not make GW's actions right.
It is entirely possible to take a picture, change all of the details, and still have something that is very reminiscent of the first picture. The human mind is good at finding patterns, (sometimes even when none exist).
Look carefully again at the picture and the sculpture. You will find that the broad sweep is the same. It is a four limbed space lizard with a tail, a gun under its torso and a bandolier. Then look at the details. In every single case they are slightly different. Different pose. Different anatomical details and so on.
Creatively bankrupt? Perhaps, though if the sculptor was given the drawing as a reference he wasn't being required to show design originality.
Morally bankrupt? I suppose that depends on what you see as the purpose of wargame model companies. If it is to put out interesting figures, GW are the bankrupt one, having spent years not making a model of the space lizard (nor the female space elf farseer, which was the last model to inspire this debate.)
What degree of difference would make the sculpt acceptable? Two barrels on the gun? No bandolier? A longer, bendier tail? Not being a gecko at all?
You risk denying people the right to copy and adapt ideas at all. You would allow companies like GW to put out all kinds of sketches and thereby prevent anyone from making any models of anything.
BryllCream wrote: He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.
He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.
That's sarcasm?
It has to be sarcasm right?
Please be aware that your position appears so ludicrous in so many GW discussions that a convenient illustration of when you're actually joking is needed.
If its serious, then congrats on further undermining the credibility of your minority viewpoint.
9 times out of 10, if a large company sends a scary letter to a small business, the small business gives in. It's not like this single miniature is a cornerstone of their company, just give it up.
Whether or not GW are legitimate in demanding this, I don't know.
I'm sorry, I don't see how that response connects with my reply or your original comment?
You should probably read more newspapers/journals then.
Regardless, if you don't understand someone's train of thought, it is considered poor manners to reach out and blame the other person for being incoherant - the implicit assumption being that *you* are the arbitrator of logical arguments and that other peoples' words are simply shadows of the forms in your mind.
If someone's words/arguments do not make sense to you, there are two possibilities - the first is that they are highly disorganised, not just stupid but pathologically incapable of forming coherant thoughts. The second is that you aren't bright enough to follow it. The former is unlikely to be true, given that people who are not part of the Butthurt Brigade have no problem addressing what I say, so, while I don't want to draw conclusions for you, you might want to think about the latter.
Then it's weird that only people who have highly erotic and confusing dreams about Games(tm) Wor(tm)kshop(tm) have that view point. Or do I imagine the replies I get from other posters?
The Butthurt Brigade doesn't run Dakka Discussions...yet.
BryllCream wrote: Then it's weird that only people who have highly erotic and confusing dreams about Games(tm) Wor(tm)kshop(tm) have that view point. Or do I imagine the replies I get from other posters?
The Butthurt Brigade doesn't run Dakka Discussions...yet.
"I am love Games Workshop because everyone is potato banana is ice cream pie. Your opinion is wrong because dinosaur."
See, it's possible,
I also don't think it's possible that you know that they do have erotic dreams. You are a really creepy man if you know what they're thinking about in their erotic dreams. A really creepy man.
BryllCream wrote: Then it's weird that only people who have highly erotic and confusing dreams about Games(tm) Wor(tm)kshop(tm) have that view point. Or do I imagine the replies I get from other posters?
The Butthurt Brigade doesn't run Dakka Discussions...yet.
"I am love Games Workshop because everyone is potato banana is ice cream pie. Your opinion is wrong because dinosaur."
See, it's possible,
I also don't think it's possible that you know that they do have erotic dreams. You are a really creepy man if you know what they're thinking about in their erotic dreams. A really creepy man.
If you re-read my post above, you'll see I covered sentances with no context or meaning behind them, and why my post was not as such.
If you continue to simply attack me for no other reason than refusing to share your viewpoint then I'll simply ignore and report you, please reply to my content.
BryllCream wrote: Then it's weird that only people who have highly erotic and confusing dreams about Games(tm) Wor(tm)kshop(tm) have that view point. Or do I imagine the replies I get from other posters?
The Butthurt Brigade doesn't run Dakka Discussions...yet.
"I am love Games Workshop because everyone is potato banana is ice cream pie. Your opinion is wrong because dinosaur."
See, it's possible,
I also don't think it's possible that you know that they do have erotic dreams. You are a really creepy man if you know what they're thinking about in their erotic dreams. A really creepy man.
If you re-read my post above, you'll see I covered sentances with no context or meaning behind them, and why my post was not as such.
If you continue to simply attack me for no other reason than refusing to share your viewpoint then I'll simply ignore and report you, please reply to my content.
Pointing out that it's entirely possible that a person's argument may not make any sense is considered an attack? I've never told you your argument does not make any sense.
It's also worth noting that if you don't want people to attack you, stop doing posts like this:
Then it's weird that only people who have highly erotic and confusing dreams about Games(tm) Wor(tm)kshop(tm) have that view point. Or do I imagine the replies I get from other posters?
The Butthurt Brigade doesn't run Dakka Discussions...yet.
BryllCream wrote: He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.
He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.
That's sarcasm?
It has to be sarcasm right?
Please be aware that your position appears so ludicrous in so many GW discussions that a convenient illustration of when you're actually joking is needed.
If its serious, then congrats on further undermining the credibility of your minority viewpoint.
9 times out of 10, if a large company sends a scary letter to a small business, the small business gives in. It's not like this single miniature is a cornerstone of their company, just give it up.
Whether or not GW are legitimate in demanding this, I don't know.
I'm sorry, I don't see how that response connects with my reply or your original comment?
You should probably read more newspapers/journals then.
Regardless, if you don't understand someone's train of thought, it is considered poor manners to reach out and blame the other person for being incoherant - the implicit assumption being that *you* are the arbitrator of logical arguments and that other peoples' words are simply shadows of the forms in your mind.
If someone's words/arguments do not make sense to you, there are two possibilities - the first is that they are highly disorganised, not just stupid but pathologically incapable of forming coherant thoughts. The second is that you aren't bright enough to follow it. The former is unlikely to be true, given that people who are not part of the Butthurt Brigade have no problem addressing what I say, so, while I don't want to draw conclusions for you, you might want to think about the latter.
Oookay.
Now could you please stop shadow boxing and actually address my original comment, which was simply a request for some clarity?
I'll overlook the allusions to my stupidity and ignorance in favour of keeping the thread open, rule one and you actually explaining what the hell you meant?
BryllCream wrote: He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.
He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.
That's sarcasm?
It has to be sarcasm right?
Please be aware that your position appears so ludicrous in so many GW discussions that a convenient illustration of when you're actually joking is needed.
If its serious, then congrats on further undermining the credibility of your minority viewpoint.
9 times out of 10, if a large company sends a scary letter to a small business, the small business gives in. It's not like this single miniature is a cornerstone of their company, just give it up.
Whether or not GW are legitimate in demanding this, I don't know.
I'm sorry, I don't see how that response connects with my reply or your original comment?
You should probably read more newspapers/journals then.
Regardless, if you don't understand someone's train of thought, it is considered poor manners to reach out and blame the other person for being incoherant - the implicit assumption being that *you* are the arbitrator of logical arguments and that other peoples' words are simply shadows of the forms in your mind.
If someone's words/arguments do not make sense to you, there are two possibilities - the first is that they are highly disorganised, not just stupid but pathologically incapable of forming coherant thoughts. The second is that you aren't bright enough to follow it. The former is unlikely to be true, given that people who are not part of the Butthurt Brigade have no problem addressing what I say, so, while I don't want to draw conclusions for you, you might want to think about the latter.
Oookay.
Now could you please stop shadow boxing and actually address my original comment, which was simply a request for some clarity?
I'll overlook the allusions to my stupidity and ignorance in favour of keeping the thread open, rule one and you actually explaining what the hell you meant?
I meant that they could just take the latter and remove that model from their website, it's not the end of the world.
Whether or not GW were morally/legal right in doing so is one a different matter, but one which, and this is very important to mention, must be weighed against the consequence of said action. Demanding that a single model not be sold/displayed on a website is, morally speaking, not a great crime.
When a police officer asks to search your vehicle without a warrant, you should let him. It's not the end of the world.
When someone wanders into your house and takes your things, you should let him. It's not the end of the world.
Or maybe GW is in the wrong here and should be punished. The Chapterhouse case has proven that while GW is great at throwing C&D notices left and right, actually protecting their IP is evidently low on the priority list.
I want to call GW stupid on this one, I really do, but they have a pretty good point.
It does look exactly like the artwork. I'm hoping that they just both had the exact same idea by accident, because otherwise I'd have to face the fact that someone's copied GW almost lizard-for-lizard, without even bothering to change small details to separate the two...
@selym.
But they are NOT identical are they.They DO vary in the details.
GW studio staff artists are inspired by much the same as any other group of artists.
And so any one using SIMILAR sources of inspiration are going to arrive at SIMILAR concepts.
BryllCream wrote: He could just stop selling the model. I'm sick of all these little guys going on a quest against the $v$l c$rp$ration gam$$$$$$$s worshop.
He copied their IP, accept the slap on the wrist and move on. Or try getting an actual job and not making a living ripping off other peoples' artwork.
That's sarcasm?
It has to be sarcasm right?
Please be aware that your position appears so ludicrous in so many GW discussions that a convenient illustration of when you're actually joking is needed.
If its serious, then congrats on further undermining the credibility of your minority viewpoint.
9 times out of 10, if a large company sends a scary letter to a small business, the small business gives in. It's not like this single miniature is a cornerstone of their company, just give it up.
Whether or not GW are legitimate in demanding this, I don't know.
I'm sorry, I don't see how that response connects with my reply or your original comment?
You should probably read more newspapers/journals then.
Regardless, if you don't understand someone's train of thought, it is considered poor manners to reach out and blame the other person for being incoherant - the implicit assumption being that *you* are the arbitrator of logical arguments and that other peoples' words are simply shadows of the forms in your mind.
If someone's words/arguments do not make sense to you, there are two possibilities - the first is that they are highly disorganised, not just stupid but pathologically incapable of forming coherant thoughts. The second is that you aren't bright enough to follow it. The former is unlikely to be true, given that people who are not part of the Butthurt Brigade have no problem addressing what I say, so, while I don't want to draw conclusions for you, you might want to think about the latter.
Oookay.
Now could you please stop shadow boxing and actually address my original comment, which was simply a request for some clarity?
I'll overlook the allusions to my stupidity and ignorance in favour of keeping the thread open, rule one and you actually explaining what the hell you meant?
I meant that they could just take the latter and remove that model from their website, it's not the end of the world.
And with that one sentence you show you have simply not read the thread at all and just used this for another attempt to get in some nasaly snark at the so-called "butthurt brigade". Take your condescending ad hominem elsewhere please.
The only really damning detail I can see (and, well, the photos are blurry as hell so this is certainly a stretch) is that little plate/circle thing on the side of its head. Other than that, it doesn't seem to fall into the realm of slavish copying.
And, yes, when someone is holding a gun to your head you often want to do what they tell you, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to judge the person with the gun rather harshly. Christ. A little dab'll do ya indeed.
Lansirill wrote: The only really damning detail I can see (and, well, the photos are blurry as hell so this is certainly a stretch) is that little plate/circle thing on the side of its head. Other than that, it doesn't seem to fall into the realm of slavish copying.
You mean the "plate/circle" like that:
I see an ear, common to all lizards, often circular in nature.
While I still do believe GW is in the right with the loxatl thing, I do find that Leonardo email hilarious and apt for all the other daft stuff GW does.
Mind you, it is the classic thing, if people on the internet really did care about this, they'd do something about it, other than just writing a sarky email to some minimum wage paid GW webmonkey.
For example, by emailing info@lusasfilm.com notifying them of GW has claim to have trademarked the term "Land Speeder" since at least 2004 (Codex: Space Marines, 4th edition) and are still claiming to hold it (I believe I saw it in the latest Dark Angels codex as well), Of course, I don't actually know trademark law, but I'm pretty sure that just because the original trademark for Land Speeder has expired, someone else can't just turn up and claim to own it now....
Lansirill wrote: The only really damning detail I can see (and, well, the photos are blurry as hell so this is certainly a stretch) is that little plate/circle thing on the side of its head. Other than that, it doesn't seem to fall into the realm of slavish copying.
And, yes, when someone is holding a gun to your head you often want to do what they tell you, but that doesn't mean people aren't going to judge the person with the gun rather harshly. Christ. A little dab'll do ya indeed.
The plate/circle thing is the tympanum which is the lizard equivalent of the human ear (the human tympanum is inside the head) and can be seen on any lizard or frog. It would be inaccurate to draw a lizard and not put a tympanum on its head.
"Our continual investment in product quality, using our defendable intellectual property, provides us with a considerable barrier to entry for potential competitors: it is our Fortress Wall. While our 400 or so Hobby centres which show customers how to collect, paint and play with our miniatures and games provide another barrier to entry: our Fortress Moat. We have been building our Fortress Wall and Moat for many years and the competitive advantage they provide gives us confidence in our ability to grow profitably in the future...."
Grot 6 wrote: "Our continual investment in product quality, using our defendable intellectual property, provides us with a considerable barrier to entry for potential competitors: it is our Fortress Wall. While our 400 or so Hobby centres which show customers how to collect, paint and play with our miniatures and games provide another barrier to entry: our Fortress Moat. We have been building our Fortress Wall and Moat for many years and the competitive advantage they provide gives us confidence in our ability to grow profitably in the future...."
I don't think anyone would deny it is similar to the art work. But what is the artwork? A lizard with some bits on it, it's not breaking the law to be inspired by something else, the model isn't identical to the artwork in many respects. If GW own that whole concept because of that simgle art, where do you White Knights draw the line before other people can make models of lizards with guns in safety?
The problem with many GW things is that they too are inspired by other things and are often largely generic in composition. Sure, the model may be based on the artwork or adapted from it, but that doesn't mean the design in the artwork is protectable in the way GW want it to be meaning that no one can produce a model that looks anything like it.
The subject of 'unclean hands' comes up quite a but with GW but my feeling is that this is quite difficult to argue which is why it doesn't seem commonly used. That said, what GW complain about with the lizard model is exactly what they did with Moorcock's 'chaos star'. Furthermore to slapping it on figures, they've printed it in books and even claim ownership of it. GW now seem to put out so many spurious C&D orders that they can't be taken to be acting in good faith at any time so it's hard to know when they really need protection. My feeling in the case of this lizard figure is that it was far too minor an issue to warrant chasing up, all they've done is draw attention to it and made themselves look stupid.
Honestly, the white-knightery is unsurprising given that it consists of the usual suspects and the people who've not read through the(admittedly now quite long) thread and are making a "gut reaction" judgement.
What does surprise me is the few purported artists who've come out so strongly in favour of using stifling legal tactics to enforce IP, since such views show a staggering lack of awareness of the mechanisms of human creativity and indeed of the history of art in human culture.
Human creativity is primarily an iterative process; the "eureka moment" is a nonsense, created by egotists and Hollywood film makers(because showing a person doing years of grinding hard work to reach their goal is "boring"). Everything we do draws either on nature or the work of other people, it's unavoidable.
"Intellectual property" is an unfortunately necessary evil in order to ensure that the labour of people using the creative process has value in a capitalist economy, but the idea that it is some kind of inherent right is bizarre, and IMO it should be enforced only to the very minimum necessary to ensure it meets its primary purpose.
There is no need to bring IP law into this particular instance, because BWM producing this miniature does nothing to damage the ability of the artist of the artwork to earn money from their work(they've already been paid for it), nor does it damage GW's ability to make money from the creativity of those they employ(since they do not produce a miniature designed to represent the same concept, and even if they did the BWM miniature would pose no threat to their legal right to do so).
Yodhrin wrote: Honestly, the white-knightery is unsurprising given that it consists of the usual suspects and the people who've not read through the(admittedly now quite long) thread and are making a "gut reaction" judgement.
What does surprise me is the few purported artists who've come out so strongly in favour of using stifling legal tactics to enforce IP, since such views show a staggering lack of awareness of the mechanisms of human creativity and indeed of the history of art in human culture.
Human creativity is primarily an iterative process; the "eureka moment" is a nonsense, created by egotists and Hollywood film makers(because showing a person doing years of grinding hard work to reach their goal is "boring"). Everything we do draws either on nature or the work of other people, it's unavoidable.
"Intellectual property" is an unfortunately necessary evil in order to ensure that the labour of people using the creative process has value in a capitalist economy, but the idea that it is some kind of inherent right is bizarre, and IMO it should be enforced only to the very minimum necessary to ensure it meets its primary purpose.
There is no need to bring IP law into this particular instance, because BWM producing this miniature does nothing to damage the ability of the artist of the artwork to earn money from their work(they've already been paid for it), nor does it damage GW's ability to make money from the creativity of those they employ(since they do not produce a miniature designed to represent the same concept, and even if they did the BWM miniature would pose no threat to their legal right to do so).
I recently wrote something similar in defense of a DMCA takedown issued at a project on github. The project itself is a set of icons and palettes -- among other.. minutiae -- in that instance, an american corporation claimed ownership of a /trend/ that has been ongoing since at least Josef Müller-Brockman and the new art movement -- flat design.
the main thing is that art, it is derivative, it is iterative. to Claim it isn't is intellectually dishonest and shows an ignorance towards the creative process not to mention a basic lack of understanding when it comes to concepts such as Originality (something wholly unto itself, lizardmen aren't they've been around since arthur conan doyle and illustrated around the same time, aside from those lizard.. things in 2000ad back in the eighties)
but this is also interesting from a legal standpoint, re: stormtrooper.
Lansirill wrote: The only really damning detail I can see (and, well, the photos are blurry as hell so this is certainly a stretch) is that little plate/circle thing on the side of its head. Other than that, it doesn't seem to fall into the realm of slavish copying.
You mean the "plate/circle" like that:
Spoiler:
I see an ear, common to all lizards, often circular in nature.
Welp, good thing I'm not a herpetologist. Thanks for the fancy lizard learnin'. Then, yeah, that's a pretty darn generic miniature.
Hm, this time I will have to agree with GW, the model looks like they pic a lot... But not enough, proportions are not near the same, and the pose too...
The picture show a very lizard like think, in a very crawling position... The model is almost bipedal.
If you take a look down aways in that discussion - you see a comment made by the owner of Layer Vault (who issued the DMCA in that particular case)...
Eventually, he removed the most blatant icons which (in my eyes) is an admission of guilt.
That is why way back at the beginning of all of this, I recommended that no matter what BW does...they have a lawyer orchestrate it for them. By simply rolling over on this issue as a few have mentioned in this thread...it is often seen as an admission of guilt which could open them up to further action by GW regarding things which are more generic. Given that GW has demonstrated in the past and present that they have no problem making long shot claims regarding their IP - what starts with something that is apparently a 100% copy as some have claimed may well end up being their entire catalog of goods by the end of the year.
Lansirill wrote: The only really damning detail I can see (and, well, the photos are blurry as hell so this is certainly a stretch) is that little plate/circle thing on the side of its head. Other than that, it doesn't seem to fall into the realm of slavish copying.
You mean the "plate/circle" like that:
Spoiler:
I see an ear, common to all lizards, often circular in nature.
Welp, good thing I'm not a herpetologist. Thanks for the fancy lizard learnin'. Then, yeah, that's a pretty darn generic miniature.
Don't worry - you are not the only one. If you read the letter sent by the GW lawyer...they specifically call out "A distinctive circular head implant just behind the eye" as their first point of comparison between the BW miniature and the GW drawing. I would have to agree - it is very distinctive...but it doesn't make me think of the GW drawing, it tells me that whatever this is, it is based on either a lizard or an amphibian which has an exposed ear drum.
Granted their next couple of items of comparison are not much better either "An ammo belt around body with large separate bullets"...
Uh Oh...they are gunning for Arnie next I guess:
And of course "A shield plate on back under ammo belt"
Now, to be honest, it looks like that shield plate on back actually attaches to a shield plate on front...something which someone might even call armor - say something like a bell cuirass?
This particular example is dated late 7th/early 6th century B.C.
In fact, if you look at the shoulder of the lizard drawing - you see what looks like it might be a hinge pin as you find on the bronze age examples of the same style of armor.
That would imply a claim to Dwarves, High Elves, Wood Elves, Ogres, Goblins, Dark Elves, Vampires, Giants, Lizardmen... Not to mention all the real places throughout the 40K system like Mars, Titan, Saturn...
That would imply a claim to Dwarves, High Elves, Wood Elves, Ogres, Goblins, Dark Elves, Vampires, Giants, Lizardmen... Not to mention all the real places throughout the 40K system like Mars, Titan, Saturn...
A lot of typical hyperbole from people who are hardly in the position to actually create and use something, and actually defend their work.
You can start grandstanding all you want.
But this specific situation is pretty clear. A cheapo sculptor decided not to due his own work, or due diligence and used the design that was a pretty dead on copy of a copyrighted and IP protected work.
He wouldn't be in any trouble had he spent a modicum of effort to change things up, as so many other sculptors have done. Thus, what's happening to him is his fault.
Vertrucio wrote: A lot of typical hyperbole from people who are hardly in the position to actually create and use something, and actually defend their work.
Do you want to maybe clarify what you mean by this?
Vertrucio wrote: A lot of typical hyperbole from people who are hardly in the position to actually create and use something, and actually defend their work.
Do you want to maybe clarify what you mean by this?
I can do that for you chief; he's incapable of responding to the various points of law, comparison, and fact regarding the creative process that various people have brought up, but he thinks if he says the word "hyperbole" we'll be bamboozled enough by them thar fancee wurds wot folks with learnin use that we won't notice he's simply repeating his initial claims without providing even a shred of argument to support them.
Doesn't anyone else think somebody higher up needs to come up with another set of rules for how this cnd stuff works. Seems slated against the little guy if they can just send you cnd letters with basically whatever they want and since you don't have the money to defend yourself then your screwed. There needs to be something in the middle there somewhere like somebody making sure this is legal first?
wowsmash wrote: Doesn't anyone else think somebody higher up needs to come up with another set of rules for how this cnd stuff works. Seems slated against the little guy if they can just send you cnd letters with basically whatever they want and since you don't have the money to defend yourself then your screwed. There needs to be something in the middle there somewhere like somebody making sure this is legal first?
No one is forced to do anything with regard to a cnd letter. A court on the other hand is a different story. Fortunately, there are lawyers who take on cases pro bono, as has happened in the CH case. So the little guy is not always screwed. I agree that it would be good if money did not hold so much weight, but it does. It buys judges, politicians, etc.
People have stated that there is legal argument in this thread. Legal opinions are settled in a court of law, not in a wargame thread. Thus GW taking this to court would be justified, as that is the place to have the matter adjudicated.
I can't be bothered to read through ten pages of people arguing past each other on this, so I will just sling in my two pennorth and then leg it.
The model is exactly the same as the artwork. It's not 'a bit similar', it's not 'coincidental', it's excatly the same. Same pose, same accessories, same shape. It was clearly scuplted straight from the picture.
Whether or not GW have done a mniniature of this race, or many people have the piece of source material or whatever is irrelevant. They hold the copyright, and the mini is clearly an infringement.
blagmasterg wrote: I can't be bothered to read through ten pages of people arguing past each other on this, so I will just sling in my two pennorth and then leg it.
The model is exactly the same as the artwork. It's not 'a bit similar', it's not 'coincidental', it's excatly the same. Same pose, same accessories, same shape. It was clearly scuplted straight from the picture.
Whether or not GW have done a mniniature of this race, or many people have the piece of source material or whatever is irrelevant. They hold the copyright, and the mini is clearly an infringement.
Simples
G
When I'm standing upside down on a wall, I have the exact same pose as when I'm standing upright on the floor! True story bro!
blagmasterg wrote: so I will just sling in my two pennorth and then leg it.
Or 'Troll', as we could also call it.
Oh, how droll - I bet that you're quite the wit in your social circle.
Just because I don't have the time or inclination to read through ten pages of people going 'I know all about the law' 'No you don't' 'GW are evil' etc etc ad nauseum, but I do have an opinion on the actual thread subject, doesn't make me a troll. If I came out with some bizarre argumnet designed only to antagonise people and didn't ever answer anything else that was said, that would be more like a troll.
If you want readers to take your argument seriously it is perhaps best not to start with the statement that you haven't bothered to read any of their arguments.
The last thing I want to do is get dragged into an argument, or to have people 'take my argument seriously' which implies that I am attemting to enter into what is sure to be another circular 'debate' wherein a lot of people argue amongst themselves with no resolution.
Apologies - all I was really saying was that I had a point of view based on observable facts. The miniature was clearly based on the sketch. To argue that the sculptor had not seen the sketch, or used it to inform his work would be folly in my opinion. Yes, its got a different number of fingers, but it also looks the same proportionately, has the same kind of gun in the same place, same bandolier, same limbs, same pose.
Now you can argue all day long about whether the sketch was a popular one, whether GW were going to make a miniature etc etc, but its the thin end of the wedge. If they don't defend this, then where does it stop? Ultimately, love or hate GW, they are a business, and business is about making money, which means protecting your assets. We might not always like to see the 'big bad corporate wolf' winning out over the little guy, but if GW don't protect their IP, they will lose money, hence they will lose shareholders and eventually they will lose the business.
All I really meant with my preface was to apologise if I ended up recycling any comments alreay made by others. I certainly wasn't trolling, and I resent being accused of such.
blagmasterg wrote: I certainly wasn't trolling, and I resent being accused of such.
so I will just sling in my two pennorth and then leg it.
Oh, how droll - I bet that you're quite the wit in your social circle.
Not trying to be funny, but you posted something with the outright intent of stoking the argument without any intention of actually being involved in the discussion.
blagmasterg wrote: I certainly wasn't trolling, and I resent being accused of such.
so I will just sling in my two pennorth and then leg it.
Oh, how droll - I bet that you're quite the wit in your social circle.
Not trying to be funny, but you posted something with the outright intent of stoking the argument without any intention of actually being involved in the discussion.
Good job then, mission accomplished
Fine, I said 'and then leg it' which was an illadvised comment. The fact that this is my fourth response and I have yet to abuse anyone or storm off in a rage kinda argues against the whole 'trolling' concept though.
Then again, that's just my opinion, and opinions are like bums - everyone has one.
I wonder what the community reaction would be if this situation was reversed, if GW was making a model that strongly resembled a small companies artwork?
marv335 wrote: I wonder what the community reaction would be if this situation was reversed, if GW was making a model that strongly resembled a small companies artwork?
marv335 wrote: I wonder what the community reaction would be if this situation was reversed, if GW was making a model that strongly resembled a small companies artwork?
A very large portion of GWs models "strongly resemble" other companies artwork, so I fail to see your point.
Vertrucio wrote: A lot of typical hyperbole from people who are hardly in the position to actually create and use something, and actually defend their work.
You can start grandstanding all you want.
But this specific situation is pretty clear. A cheapo sculptor decided not to due his own work, or due diligence and used the design that was a pretty dead on copy of a copyrighted and IP protected work.
He wouldn't be in any trouble had he spent a modicum of effort to change things up, as so many other sculptors have done. Thus, what's happening to him is his fault.
"I do not think it means what you think it means."
giggity giggity!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blagmasterg wrote: I can't be bothered to read through ten pages of people arguing past each other on this, so I will just sling in my two pennorth and then leg it.
The model is exactly the same as the artwork. It's not 'a bit similar', it's not 'coincidental', it's excatly the same. Same pose, same accessories, same shape. It was clearly scuplted straight from the picture.
Whether or not GW have done a mniniature of this race, or many people have the piece of source material or whatever is irrelevant. They hold the copyright, and the mini is clearly an infringement.
Simples
G
And...
No. Go back and read the ten pages, you'll save yourself a heart ache.
If you can't be bothered, you are going to miss out on some ironic hyperbole, and some fancy lawyer talk, along with a really good add on for White Dwarfs from the past that... do the exact same thing that you are drive by trolling/ mudering kittens/ kicking puppys about.
And no. They don't have a copyright on Kleggs.
Edited, thanks for that. Puts the discussion up on an entirly new... tangent.
I/E How big does a company have to get before they actually stop in the idea business and stop being visionary? When you outright proudly claim that you are using your lawyer as a way to fund your company, you lose more credibility then if you would have.. you know.. actually worked and made something that people actually wanted.
" Our continual investment in product quality, using our defendable intellectual property, provides us with a considerable barrier to entry for potential competitors: it is our Fortress Wall. While our 400 or so Hobby centres which show customers how to collect, paint and play with our miniatures and games provide another barrier to entry: our Fortress Moat. We have been building our Fortress Wall and Moat for many years and the competitive advantage they provide gives us confidence in our ability to grow profitably in the future."
WHAT, DOES THIS MEAN? It means exactly that. Pay for the company through litigation because the property is weak.
marv335 wrote: I wonder what the community reaction would be if this situation was reversed, if GW was making a model that strongly resembled a small companies artwork?
I appreciate your sentiment, but I have a few observations.
This dichotomy is not merely big company vs small company. That is there, to be sure, but it is not so simple that a mere reversal is entirely apt.
GW is a large company for sure, and its IP enforcement practices are by and large focused on small companies. But not only does GW focus on small companies, it has an established pattern of making overly broad and unsupportable claims against small companies. Now, the reason to do that is a type of SLAPP litigation. The small company likely has little means to so much as respond to a lawsuit, or the threat of a lawsuit, rendering the need to make supportable claims virtually meaningless. The mere threat of litigation is enough to achieve the desired goal, at least in theory. Thus, the large company can force a smaller company to accede to its will regardless of the merits of its claims.
This is not merely conjecture at this point, but fact. Many of GW's claims have failed on the threshold, and in fact GW's 30(b)(6) witness has repeatedly disclaimedGW's allegations under oath. Further, note the Spots the Space Marine debacle, wherein GW made a DMCA takedown demand for alleged trademark infringement when (A) GW arguably does not own the asserted mark in the asserted context (remember that GW already has a Court's opinion that none of its marks are famous in the US), (B) the asserted mark is arguably weak to the point of nonexistence, (C) the accused conduct arguably could not have infringed said mark if it had existed, and (D) the DMCA is not applicable to trademark infringement.
With such a pattern of behavior, GW's assertion of alleged rights in the present instance is surrounded by a rather dismal context. Were the dichotomy of size to be reversed, such a similar context could simply not exist.
Second, GW's IP enforcement practices are arguably hypocritical in that GW is asserting rights that it does not respect in others. Again, were the dichotomy of size merely to be reversed, such a similar context would not necessarily exist.
Third, the reversal of said situation does actually exist. Take a look at GW's product releases subsequent to December 22nd, 2010 when it filed a lawsuit against Chapterhouse Studios. Note that prior to the commencement of this action, GW never designed, manufactured, marketed, or sold a modular combi-weapon set. Several of GW's allegations of infringement are related to the combi-weapon magnetic kit produced by the defendant. GW now produces a modular combi-weapon product.
Has GW been sued? Has GW received a C&D? Note too that Anvil Industries now produces a modular combi-weapon kit. Has Anvil been sued? Has Anvil received a C&D? No, no, no, and no. Why, I cannot say as I do not know, but one reasonable inference would be that the first company to design and manufacture such a product does not feel that its rights broadly extend to the concept of a modular combi-weapon kit, but rather to the discrete, original creations of its artists.
Copyright Grot, copyright. The right to control copies of your original works of art.
I am sorry to call you out on that, but I generally feel that knowing the proper term is an excellent way to begin understanding what copyright is and what it is not.
marv335 wrote: I wonder what the community reaction would be if this situation was reversed, if GW was making a model that strongly resembled a small companies artwork?
Kilkrazy wrote: If you want readers to take your argument seriously it is perhaps best not to start with the statement that you haven't bothered to read any of their arguments.
I have been following this thread, and it does indeed boil down to one group of people saying it looks very similar, and another group of people saying that it looks nothing like the drawing. That's more or less all there is to this "debate".
I tried to read this thread, but now have an urge to drive knitting needles into my eyes. The vitriol is really quite something to behold.
I'm no GW apologist, but even when someone is blatantly ripping off a piece of copyrighted work (that to my knowledge is not generic or 'done before') they're not allowed to defend it? The 'differences' are so minor as to be basically irrelevant. The C&D letter states enough similarities to be enforceable through court. The pose in particular (though lizards are not the most posey things going) is too similar to be coincidental, especially when coupled with the anatomical quirks of the artwork, especially the ear spiracle (which does not resemble the pit present on komodo dragons and presumably their mutant brethren).
In this particular case, I believe it's a correct call from GW legal.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you want readers to take your argument seriously it is perhaps best not to start with the statement that you haven't bothered to read any of their arguments.
I have been following this thread, and it does indeed boil down to one group of people saying it looks very similar, and another group of people saying that it looks nothing like the drawing. That's more or less all there is to this "debate".
That is a pretty inaccurate characterization. Just read all posts by myself and Sean, for example. I have never said that looks nothing like the drawing. And there is a very significant difference between saying that it looks very similar to the drawing and saying that it is a copy, that GW is right to sue, and that BW is in the wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote: If you want readers to take your argument seriously it is perhaps best not to start with the statement that you haven't bothered to read any of their arguments.
I have been following this thread, and it does indeed boil down to one group of people saying it looks very similar, and another group of people saying that it looks nothing like the drawing. That's more or less all there is to this "debate".
Really? So the whole "lawyery" discussion that is going on on the implications of copyright has gone completely over your head?
I still think that if people want to do something about it, GW has left plenty of ammo lying around that can be used by companies even more used to launching law suits than GW. Heck, I've even some a load of research for them. The fact that no one has done so, seems to say to me is just a load of internet hot air. As to why I'm posting in this thread.... Well, I haven't figured that out yet...
) standpoint I can actually see this being a potentially legitimate grievance.
like this is a drag on the whole community. Blight Wheel makes some cool products plenty of which are designed to allow 
She has CAMO ON!!!! 
