Tank crew on foot are nice models for dioramas but they don't have a role in the game, so players will not be interested.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:But why are we getting mad at GW for having a hole in their model range? It's like we're getting mad at them for having too expansive a background or rules set. Would we rather just not have them at all? Seems like the solution to me is for GW to just ditch all rules they don't intend to make models for then.

Alternatively they could put a bit more effort into making the required models. They are supposed to be a model company that issues rules to promote models.

A lot of people would rather there were fewer SM releases and codexes, and more Xenos love instead.

Kilkrazy wrote:Tank crew on foot are nice models for dioramas but they don't have a role in the game, so players will not be interested.

They're nice concepts for dioramas, but the models themselves by the standards that I, personally, hold GW to are terrible. The same thing goes for Pask, to be honest.

They're terrible sculpts and clearly were done for some unknown reason. Pask is three fingered and looks like someone really wanted to make a Tau Tank Commander wearing a Cadian uniform.

I don't know how I missed this thread.

Legally, I don't believe CH has done anything that isn't allowed by law. It is a physically unique creation, made by CH. It is not derrivative of any particular GW product, just of a facet of the eldar concept. I do not believe the court would have issue with what CH has done, but IF they were to, they would weigh the inherently derrivative nature of elves in space and reduce GW's damages proportionately.

As a matter of ethics we have to weigh the motives of CH; since ethics are a self imposed set of values. CH by its ethics has been relatively consistent, putting its customers wants over that GW's. It has attempted to avoid doing anything illegal, following it ethical imperitive. CH has a unique model, which they are in the business of selling. Let me pose a hypothetical... if this model came from an artist, in a black box, who never knew GW and never knew there was 40k... would people be right in saying its "wrong?"-I don't think so. Next we have an artist, fully aware of GW, its art and concepts, just because of that knowledge do they have an imperative to avoid any degree of influence on their future works?-I don't think so. So for us to impose our ethical system, we need to establish what degree of influence or inspiration is acceptable. CH is in the business of compatible miniatures, by that it has to maintain some higher level of similarity, or it is a failure. Thus it has to be heavily influenced and heavily inspired. Our society has nothing against compatibility and only really protects numerically based encrypted systems from outside compatibility. Morality pertains, to the socially accepted sense of right and wrong... I think at the heart of this post is the communal indecision on this issue. The fact is it comes down whether "we" believe CH has acted improperly? -I don't think "we" do. Based on many places where similar degrees of commonality exist and are accepted, I think its a large about-face that makes an exception here for what I feel are because of people's proximity to the issue. This is a hobby, people are passionate about this... but so are many other things that aren't held to such esteem.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:But why are we getting mad at GW for having a hole in their model range? It's like we're getting mad at them for having too expansive a background or rules set. Would we rather just not have them at all? Seems like the solution to me is for GW to just ditch all rules they don't intend to make models for then.

I don't mind them leaving gaps as such. I think it's unfair to leave obvious gaps in your range, show no intention to ever fill them, and then stamp on other companies producing models that do fit them. Either fill the gaps or let it slide. Not everyone is into kitbashing and converting everything from GW only parts, they want to pick something off the shelf. If they can't do that from GW they will do it from someone else.

And some stuff would be easy to fix, like jetseers and jetlocks.

Why they couldn't muster even a FW tervigon kit is perplexing.

According to FW, it's because they were told to not do it since the studio was gonna handle it.

I think the Vendetta was a "special case" as there was no plans to do something so simple, but the Elysians were getting IA8 anyways.

Polonius wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:But why are we getting mad at GW for having a hole in their model range? It's like we're getting mad at them for having too expansive a background or rules set. Would we rather just not have them at all? Seems like the solution to me is for GW to just ditch all rules they don't intend to make models for then.

It depends on how you approach GW games. If you're looking for a way to use the models you have, than the rules generally work perfectly. Unless you have something that's no longer supported.

If you look for models with which to play the game, than having holes in the range creates a demand. Nobody is angry at GW, at least not too much, but there are some really strong tactical options that dont' have models. Filling those holes has a lot of value to the community.

Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

That hasn't been explicity true since at least late 3rd edition, when the IG and Chaos books made it clear that a lot of stuff was conversion only. the current trend by far is for more coverage of units and options.

Some books have complete ranges fleshed out, completely. Look at Witchhunters, Tau, and even Chaos (cue HBMC's head exploding). Other ranges are stupidly close: Eldar, Orks, Space marines, Demons, Grey Knights, DA, BA, Wolves.

Nids are really the only 5th edition range to be underserved. IG miss a lot of units, but only a few can't be easily converted, and those are all available at FW.

Polonius wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

That hasn't been explicity true since at least late 3rd edition, when the IG and Chaos books made it clear that a lot of stuff was conversion only. the current trend by far is for more coverage of units and options.

Some books have complete ranges fleshed out, completely. Look at Witchhunters, Tau, and even Chaos (cue HBMC's head exploding). Other ranges are stupidly close: Eldar, Orks, Space marines, Demons, Grey Knights, DA, BA, Wolves.

Nids are really the only 5th edition range to be underserved. IG miss a lot of units, but only a few can't be easily converted, and those are all available at FW.

Yes, in the future I'm sure codices will be less like the 'nid one is what I'm saying. Why create a unit that may give business to a competitor? Make the model first then the rules.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

Is it "moral" to create a vacuum, encourage your customers to fill it, and then try to stop a customer when he decides to start selling a product that you encouraged him to make? You might say that GW's encouragement only extended to personal use, but GW created an environment in which Chapterhouse Studios was an inevitable result. Now the company is yelling shenanigans. It's like saying, "Come on wimp, hit me!" and then being surprised when you get hit. Can you really blame the guy that threw the punch?

LunaHound wrote:

Neconilis wrote:So, the sky is falling?

The phrase The sky is falling! features prominently in the story, and has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent.

Hmm nope?

Exactly as I thought.

I'm of the opinion that GW should just tell Chapterhouse if they want to keep making their models, they need to sign a Royalty Agreement (ie 25% of each sale is GW's) and GW should have a say in what is produced as the intent is for these parts are to be used in conjunction with their product. If it wasn't for GW, they would have no product. Both parties would be satisfied as Chapterhouse would remain in business and GW can not complain the bits made by Chapterhouse are inferior or they are losing sales because a sale by Chapterhouse would bring in revenue for GW).

Off-topic, can someone point me to the part of the Grey Knights codex or other source where I can find the Xenos inquisitor and Xenos henchmen?

aka_mythos wrote:
As a matter of ethics we have to weigh the motives of CH; since ethics are a self imposed set of values. CH by its ethics has been relatively consistent, putting its customers wants over that GW's. It has attempted to avoid doing anything illegal, following it ethical imperitive. CH has a unique model, which they are in the business of selling. Let me pose a hypothetical... if this model came from an artist, in a black box, who never knew GW and never knew there was 40k... would people be right in saying its "wrong?"-I don't think so. Next we have an artist, fully aware of GW, its art and concepts, just because of that knowledge do they have an imperative to avoid any degree of influence on their future works?

Well, no one with knowledge of GW would have a problem because the whole reason there is this controversy over the Doomseer is because of its similarities to 40k Eldar models. As an individual model it's fine, of low quality IMHO, but separate from 40k it would be ok. You have to take into consideration the reason the model exists. It isn't an individual separate from 40k, it was created to be used as a Farseer in GW's model line.

It would be great if it were only DERIVED from a Farseer and supposed to be used in CHs own game system. It clearly isn't a derivative model made to be its own thing. I agree that there should be a certain metaphorical line that separates when a model is too heavily influenced and when it's original. Scibor's Celtic Warriors are too similar to 40k Space Marines to be truly individual.

weeble1000 wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

Is it "moral" to create a vacuum, encourage your customers to fill it, and then try to stop a customer when he decides to start selling a product that you encouraged him to make? You might say that GW's encouragement only extended to personal use, but GW created an environment in which Chapterhouse Studios was an inevitable result. Now the company is yelling shenanigans. It's like saying, "Come on wimp, hit me!" and then being surprised when you get hit. Can you really blame the guy that threw the punch?

I said GW shouldn't put units without models in their codices. Smaller codices with less unit diversity = win for everyone.

weeble1000 wrote:Is it "moral" to create a vacuum, encourage your customers to fill it, and then try to stop a customer when he decides to start selling a product that you encouraged him to make? You might say that GW's encouragement only extended to personal use, but GW created an environment in which Chapterhouse Studios was an inevitable result. Now the company is yelling shenanigans. It's like saying, "Come on wimp, hit me!" and then being surprised when you get hit. Can you really blame the guy that threw the punch?

I never really thought of it that way. When GW encourages players to modify or alter their models, they're really just saying "hey, you should violate our copyright just a bit". They can't really complain when someone violates their copyright and makes money off of it.

If someone makes a custom shoulderpad for their Mary Sue Marines, GW says "hey cool, look what this guy did." If you start selling it, they sue.

There's a difference (both legally and ethically) when GW creates the design and refused to produce it, as opposed to a solely fan-created work.

boyd wrote:I'm of the opinion that GW should just tell Chapterhouse if they want to keep making their models, they need to sign a Royalty Agreement (ie 25% of each sale is GW's) and GW should have a say in what is produced as the intent is for these parts are to be used in conjunction with their product. If it wasn't for GW, they would have no product. Both parties would be satisfied as Chapterhouse would remain in business and GW can not complain the bits made by Chapterhouse are inferior or they are losing sales because a sale by Chapterhouse would bring in revenue for GW).

Except:
1) Chapterhouse probably couldn't survive by losing 25% of each sale to Games Workshop.

2) Certain GW-fanboys who don't like CH's quality might interpret these miniatures as "GW Made" and stop buying GW since they're releasing poorly-made products. Then again, those same GW fanboys might excluse the poor sculpts because "they're GW, and therefore awesome"

3) Chapterhouse shouldn't have to pay a royalty fee for something that they're legally entitled to do. If CH isn't violating GW's IP, then GW has no right to demand a license.

4) Absent strict controls on model production, this would dilute GW's brand.

GW should approach the thing like WotC did with D20. Yes, anyone can make a mini for it, but if you want ot use our logo (not brand name) then we'll charge for that and it has to meet criteria. Would give them some control back over their IP, but at the same time allow a broader market to emerge. They stay profitable AND allows more variety in bits.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

I don't think they do. I think gaps exist because things that don't get released around the time of the codex are swept under the carpet because shortly after they are pushing the next big release. GW seem very good now at single mindedly concentrating on one army at a time and things from even a couple of months prior get very little attention, they are old news. This is why some armies go years and years and hardly get a bone thrown their way.

People want to see new miniature for their armies. Again if there's little prospect of new releases being in the pipeline then people will start buying 3rd party just to get some variety and have something that's a bit new and different to the same old stuff that's been on the GW website for several years.

Does anyone seriously think that Space Wolf players will get their thunderwolves? Space Wolf codex was a while back now, I'm guessing GW realised they look a bit silly and haven't produced figures, did they even make scuplts? Don't know because they are so secretive. Will they go back and do them now? Doesn't look like it. They'll probably get written out of the next codex in a few years time because without models they are a bit redundant and will never be used. Good on those companies making thunderwolves, there are players who do want them and there are several companies offering such things so there's a bit of choice in different styles.

iproxtaco wrote:Off-topic, can someone point me to the part of the Grey Knights codex or other source where I can find the Xenos inquisitor and Xenos henchmen?

I'm not sure if I understand this question (sarcasm?). There is a standard Ordo Xenos Inquisitor and an Ordo Xenos special character in the new GK HQ options. Inquisitorial henchmen are not ordo-specific and bands of them fill an elites slot unless you take Coteaz as your HQ, in which case they are troops.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Those "holes" exist to be filled by conversions and encourage modelling. If a third party simply comes in and makes the models I think GW would simply eliminate those units from the game as a business decision.

I don't think they do. I think gaps exist because things that don't get released around the time of the codex are swept under the carpet because shortly after they are pushing the next big release. GW seem very good now at single mindedly concentrating on one army at a time and things from even a couple of months prior get very little attention, they are old news. This is why some armies go years and years and hardly get a bone thrown their way.

Uh...huh.
So the whole recent implementation of 'waves' is a mass hysterical illusion?

People want to see new miniature for their armies. Again if there's little prospect of new releases being in the pipeline then people will start buying 3rd party just to get some variety and have something that's a bit new and different to the same old stuff that's been on the GW website for several years.

Of course people want to see new miniatures for their armies.

Wait, what? Look at the whining that happens when "new miniatures" are released by Forge World but they have nothing to do with the Codex itself.
The Eldar Corsairs are being done as a 'fun' thing for IA11--people are complaining.
The Imperial Guard get the Crassus APC--people are complaining.

People don't want to "see new miniatures for their armies". They want a new book every time another race has their book released.

Does anyone seriously think that Space Wolf players will get their thunderwolves? Space Wolf codex was a while back now, I'm guessing GW realised they look a bit silly and haven't produced figures, did they even make sculpts? Don't know because they are so secretive. Will they go back and do them now? Doesn't look like it. They'll probably get written out of the next codex in a few years time because without models they are a bit redundant and will never be used. Good on those companies making thunderwolves, there are players who do want them and there are several companies offering such things so there's a bit of choice in different styles.

Yes, actually I've got a pretty good inkling of Thunderwolves being released and kept.

Forge World has said that they were prevented from making Thunderwolves to go with IA11.
IA11 releases in June/July, and the reason they were told is because a Thunderwolf kit is releasing sometime this fall.

It may sound silly, but they're finessing the waves thing.

What sculpts?

Manchu wrote:

iproxtaco wrote:Off-topic, can someone point me to the part of the Grey Knights codex or other source where I can find the Xenos inquisitor and Xenos henchmen?

I'm not sure if I understand this question (sarcasm?). There is a standard Ordo Xenos Inquisitor and an Ordo Xenos special character in the new GK HQ options. Inquisitorial henchmen are not ordo-specific and bands of them fill an elites slot unless you take Coteaz as your HQ, in which case they are troops.

Not sure really, a lot of talk went on about 'Xenos inquisitor and Xenos henchmen', I wondered what they were. It seems they were just specific un-modeled henchmen and an Ordo-Xenos Inquisitor which I found in the book, but thanks for a reply anyway.

biccat wrote:
I never really thought of it that way. When GW encourages players to modify or alter their models, they're really just saying "hey, you should violate our copyright just a bit". They can't really complain when someone violates their copyright and makes money off of it.

Sure they can... Almost every fandom on the net has this. It is called 'fanart' and 'fanfiction'. Companies let you infringe and look the other way as long as you don't sell your art. So yes, they can complain when someone violates their copyright and makes money off it. Technically they can complain even when you don't make money off it... Pretty much you are playing in their sandbox and can be thrown out at any time.

Morally I think a few items of CH were a bit near the mark/over it, however the doomseer was definantly a step too far, it's not filling a gap really (gw makes farseers already) nor is it original, just a knockoff IMO. If someone is selling 'nike' sports gear (read printed at home copies or similar to originals) from a suitcase in a pub that is illegal and wrong, and I cannot see how this seeris any different.

As an aside, gw could 'win' by just getting forgeworld to make everything CH does as it comes out but at higher quality and a little cheaper, run them out of business, not saying it's right but it's an option for them if they lose the case.

nkelsch wrote:
Sure they can... Almost every fandom on the net has this. It is called 'fanart' and 'fanfiction'. Companies let you infringe and look the other way as long as you don't sell your art. So yes, they can complain when someone violates their copyright and makes money off it. Technically they can complain even when you don't make money off it... Pretty much you are playing in their sandbox and can be thrown out at any time.

Except as far as I know, no other company claims that, if you draw a character you created chugging a cold one with Leman Russ, that they own that character as well. Here's a dirty little secret of getting your minis in White Dwarf: even if it's total greenstuff, they print it, they claim it's theirs. Read the fine print on a GW contract some time with anything to do with 40k, because GW will go after your first born child if they can. They can make Marvel's 'we own everything you draw the whole time you work for us even on your day off work on a cocktail napkin' policies from the late 90's after the Jim Lee debacle look downright reasonable.

Sirius42 wrote:
As an aside, gw could 'win' by just getting forgeworld to make everything CH does as it comes out but at higher quality and a little cheaper, run them out of business, not saying it's right but it's an option for them if they lose the case.

That would require FW to get it's act together on Quality Control. I don't care how good your sculpt is, if it's warped and got babbles, it's still crap.

I don't know what companies you're buying resin from that have completely unwarped products, but I'd like to invest.

Because from Hasegawa to AFV Club Taiwan(with resin conversion kits on par with most freaking FW infantry's prices) I've had warping.

Now, if your argument for quality control is "I don't like using warm water" there's a big issue.

Kanluwen wrote:I don't know what companies you're buying resin from that have completely unwarped products, but I'd like to invest.

Because from Hasegawa to AFV Club Taiwan(with resin conversion kits on par with most freaking FW infantry's prices) I've had warping.

Now, if your argument for quality control is "I don't like using warm water" there's a big issue.

Warm water doesn't solve the 'giant assed bubbles/incomplete pour' issue. Only 'return to FW' solves it. Or a lot of greenstuff.

So far, and I'm probably just lucky here, the CH stuff I've bought had no warping and no bubbles. Also, Verlinden hasn't, yet.

(And Verlinden can be every bit as expensive as AFV, unless they're on sale)

BaronIveagh wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I don't know what companies you're buying resin from that have completely unwarped products, but I'd like to invest.

Because from Hasegawa to AFV Club Taiwan(with resin conversion kits on par with most freaking FW infantry's prices) I've had warping.

Now, if your argument for quality control is "I don't like using warm water" there's a big issue.

Warm water doesn't solve the 'giant assed bubbles/incomplete pour' issue. Only 'return to FW' solves it. Or a lot of greenstuff.

So far, and I'm probably just lucky here, the CH stuff I've bought had no warping and no bubbles. Also, Verlinden hasn't, yet.

(And Verlinden can be every bit as expensive as AFV, unless they're on sale)

You'll notice that I specifically said warping.

Warping is to be expected. Bubbles/incomplete pours happen with any manufacturer as well. I had a $96 kit from Hasegawa's Maschinen Krieger line that had incomplete pours and bubbles.

And they don't do replacements like FW does.

Morally / Ethically I'm ok with it. The whole problem could be solved if GW would just make all the bits required. As for the full model they have I'm a little iffy but it looks better than the GW models so its up to the player. Legally, I am not a lawyer so I have no opinion.

Sirius42 wrote:Morally I think a few items of CH were a bit near the mark/over it, however the doomseer was definantly a step too far, it's not filling a gap really (gw makes farseers already) nor is it original, just a knockoff IMO. If someone is selling 'nike' sports gear (read printed at home copies or similar to originals) from a suitcase in a pub that is illegal and wrong, and I cannot see how this seeris any different.

As an aside, gw could 'win' by just getting forgeworld to make everything CH does as it comes out but at higher quality and a little cheaper, run them out of business, not saying it's right but it's an option for them if they lose the case.

That's a point I'd not considered before. What is the point in them making this 'Doomseer'? There other stuff is marketed wrongly but at least it's filling holes in GW model range. 40k already has plenty of Farseer and Warlock models, why make this poorer quality one?

Kanluwen wrote:
You'll notice that I specifically said warping.

Warping is to be expected. Bubbles/incomplete pours happen with any manufacturer as well. I had a $96 kit from Hasegawa's Maschinen Krieger line that had incomplete pours and bubbles.

And they don't do replacements like FW does.

Can't say I've ever used Hasegawa.

I can say that I'm glad FW does take them back, because I've never gotten so many of them before. I once bought ten turrets ('Leman Russ Conversion kits' though at the time all they really were was a turret)from them. I ended up sending back 4 due to bubbles and incomplete pours. And since they sell them in clear bags, you'd think they'd notice things like it having half a gun, or a quarter of the turret missing, which were the two worst. One replacement also had serious bubbles, but I decided to just use that one for the zimmerit one and greestuffed over them

I've never ha the sort of trouble I did with FW from another company.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

iproxtaco wrote:
That's a point I'd not considered before. What is the point in them making this 'Doomseer'? There other stuff is marketed wrongly but at least it's filling holes in GW model range. 40k already has plenty of Farseer and Warlock models, why make this poorer quality one?

Because it's a jet bike rider, which GW doesn't produce.

The Doomseer model that sparked this thread isn't a "jetbike rider".

iproxtaco wrote:

Sirius42 wrote:Morally I think a few items of CH were a bit near the mark/over it, however the doomseer was definantly a step too far, it's not filling a gap really (gw makes farseers already) nor is it original, just a knockoff IMO. If someone is selling 'nike' sports gear (read printed at home copies or similar to originals) from a suitcase in a pub that is illegal and wrong, and I cannot see how this seeris any different.

As an aside, gw could 'win' by just getting forgeworld to make everything CH does as it comes out but at higher quality and a little cheaper, run them out of business, not saying it's right but it's an option for them if they lose the case.

That's a point I'd not considered before. What is the point in them making this 'Doomseer'? There other stuff is marketed wrongly but at least it's filling holes in GW model range. 40k already has plenty of Farseer and Warlock models, why make this poorer quality one?

They made it to poke people right in the crazy. And it worked. Spectacularly.

If only they had cross-marketed it with a certain foam tray producer.

Kanluwen wrote:The Doomseer model that sparked this thread isn't a "jetbike rider".

Sorry, I had gotten it mixed up with the farseer jetbike since it's been a while. Went back and looked. *shrug* no idea why they made it, other then it seems to be using different weapons then any of the farseer minis I could find. Also, the actual sculpt, other then than, very broadly, the shape of the helmet, doesn't really look like GW's farseers, if you compare the minis on GW's site with it.

I can see this possibly being thrown out.

And I thought this thread was sparked by what it says above 'eldar sculpts' not just doomseer.

iproxtaco wrote:That's a point I'd not considered before. What is the point in them making this 'Doomseer'? There other stuff is marketed wrongly but at least it's filling holes in GW model range. 40k already has plenty of Farseer and Warlock models, why make this poorer quality one?

Because this one is apparently female.

BaronIveagh wrote:Except as far as I know, no other company claims that, if you draw a character you created chugging a cold one with Leman Russ, that they own that character as well.

Where exactly has GW claimed this? Beyond stating that work based on their IP is technically still their property... which it is (or at least can be), as I understand it.

Here's a dirty little secret of getting your minis in White Dwarf: even if it's total greenstuff, they print it, they claim it's theirs.

That's not a dirty little secret of White Dwarf. It's a fairly well-known and accepted side-effect of getting your work printed in a magazine. The publisher can and often does take ownership of the copyright on your submission, although it's sometimes only for a limited period.

I would be more concerned about the fact that if you ever had a Geocities website, Yahoo technically now owns the copyright to anything you ever published on it. That was a 'dirty little secret' (although it wouldn't have been if people bothered to read user agreements)... GW taken ownership of everything they publish in their own magazine or on their own website? Par for the course, really... and common sense practice.

Yes, it's like writing for spider-man for marvel. Just because you write a spider-man story doesn't mean you own spider-man. It belongs to marvel as do any subsequent characters that get created. It's not a dirty secret by the evil empire, it's normal.

insaniak wrote:Where exactly has GW claimed this? Beyond stating that work based on their IP is technically still their property... which it is (or at least can be), as I understand it.

"PLEASE NOTE that any work you create using our intellectual property is not "owned" by you."

"Please note that we consider any background material you write to be a work which is derivative of our intellectual property."

Both from Games Workshops site.

Oh, and for real giggles, a lot of people on this site are just as in violation of GW's IP rules as CH is: "If you want to use avatars and similar monikers, create them yourself and credit the origins of the IP in your message sign off."

insaniak wrote:
That's not a dirty little secret of White Dwarf. It's a fairly well-known and accepted side-effect of getting your work printed in a magazine. The publisher can and often does take ownership of the copyright on your submission, although it's sometimes only for a limited period.

In my experience that's not true. What they do is ask that you grant them right to reprint unless you're working directly for them (at which point it's work for hire and thier copyright anyway).

BaronIveagh wrote:"PLEASE NOTE that any work you create using our intellectual property is not "owned" by you."

"Please note that we consider any background material you write to be a work which is derivative of our intellectual property."

Both from Games Workshops site.

And both true, and not at all unusual claims. Of course they're going to claim ownership of work based on their IP. That's what IP laws are for.

Oh, and for real giggles, a lot of people on this site are just as in violation of GW's IP rules as CH is: "If you want to use avatars and similar monikers, create them yourself and credit the origins of the IP in your message sign off."

It's never been enforced, as far as I'm aware, but yes, an avatar using a piece of GW's artwork is no less a violation than any other copying of their artwork.

insaniak wrote:In my experience that's not true. What they do is ask that you grant them right to reprint unless you're working directly for them (at which point it's work for hire and thier copyright anyway).

I would think that would largely depend on just what it is you're writing. If you're submitting an article to, say, a computer magazine... sure, they're not going to be as interested in keeping the copyright themselves. But if you're working within someone else's IP, you're going to run into exactly the same sort of stipulations as GW has.

Edited brb


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Now, where it's boggling to me? Why hasn't Forge World done the combi-meltas, plasmas, etc?

Thats easy , the more convenient access customers have to specific bits and pieces they need , the less they'll be dependent on the extra bits
we get from kits. The less bits they need from left over box set = the less worth we get out of the box set. Which coincides with how "cheap" we perceive the pricing to be.

For example:

Loota / Burna set.
Space Wolf Pack set
IG Command Squad Set

BaronIveagh wrote:
Oh, and for real giggles, a lot of people on this site are just as in violation of GW's IP rules as CH is: "If you want to use avatars and similar monikers, create them yourself and credit the origins of the IP in your message sign off."

Yep... almost everything we do with GW's models that is a conversion is technically in violation of GW's IP and a derivative work... When you start making money off your violations, GW then has a reason to enforce copyrights and defend IP.

In the fanart realm, it is usually when people begin selling prints of fanart. Some companies will licence the prints and support good fan art, some will burn your house down, both are within their rights.

insaniak wrote:
And both true, and not at all unusual claims. Of course they're going to claim ownership of work based on their IP. That's what IP laws are for.

One, actually, IP laws were originally created to protect authors and creators from large companys printing unauthorized editions of their work, as the average person is unlikely to have the same financial wherewithal to fight for years in court. You can see how that situation has been reversed thanks to the constant lobbying of the Walt Disney Company.

Two: Bar some extenuation, by selecting this interpretation, they effectively claim your rights to any new characters created and placed in that setting, even if you have previously published them outside that setting.

insaniak wrote:
It's never been enforced, as far as I'm aware, but yes, an avatar using a piece of GW's artwork is no less a violation than any other copying of their artwork."

Actually, the section that comes form also expressly includes 'all representations of GW IP', meaning fanart as well as GW produced artwork. And just because it's never been enforced doesn't mean we all might not get a C&D in the mail tomorrow morning.

insaniak wrote:
I would think that would largely depend on just what it is you're writing. If you're submitting an article to, say, a computer magazine... sure, they're not going to be as interested in keeping the copyright themselves. But if you're working within someone else's IP, you're going to run into exactly the same sort of stipulations as GW has.

Because by the way this reads, they don't need your consent. Or even you submitting to them.

And, again, they extend to greens, which may not technically be their IP. "You waive and relinquish any rights, including "moral rights," that may exist in any content to the furthest extent permissible by law and agree not to assert any rights over that content." This means that GW in no way has to credit you as the original author or artist, and could use it for whatever purposes they want. Mind you, it's doublespeak, as in most countries where 'moral rights' are recognized, they're non-transferable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:Yep... almost everything we do with GW's models that is a conversion is technically in violation of GW's IP and a derivative work... When you start making money off your violations, GW then has a reason to enforce copyrights and defend IP.
In the fanart realm, it is usually when people begin selling prints of fanart. Some companies will licence the prints and support good fan art, some will burn your house down, both are within their rights.

The problem becomes all GW's own IP are, themselves, derivative works (by thier own admission, years ago). So, where does GW's IP begin and the IP they liberally stole from end?


Further, their policies totally ignore fair use entirely.

BaronIveagh wrote:Two: Bar some extenuation, by selecting this interpretation, they effectively claim your rights to any new characters created and placed in that setting, even if you have previously published them outside that setting.

Still not seeing a problem, to be honest. If you don't want to face that possibility, don't use their setting for your art/fiction/whatever.

Actually, the section that comes form also expressly includes 'all representations of GW IP', meaning fanart as well as GW produced artwork.

Which is what I just said.

And just because it's never been enforced doesn't mean we all might not get a C&D in the mail tomorrow morning.

Of course it doesn't. That won't happen, though. Regardless of what the Sky Is Falling crowd would have everyone on the internet believe, GW do have limits on how far they will push. To date, they have never had a problem with fan art or fan fiction, so long as it stays within the bounds of what they consider reasonable.

The legal documentation is deliverately far harsher than reality. That's not an indication that they're going to set loose the hounds on little johnny with his page of Space Marine fan art. It's just covering themselves from whatever actual, real issues may arise down the track.

Because by the way this reads, they don't need your consent. Or even you submitting to them.

I would expect that privacy laws would go some way towards preventing them from just busting into your house and photographing your minis, though.

insaniak wrote:

insaniak wrote:Because by the way this reads, they don't need your consent. Or even you submitting to them.

I would expect that privacy laws would go some way towards preventing them from just busting into your house and photographing your minis, though.

Wait... are you arguing yourself here? You win!

Lt. Coldfire wrote:Wait... are you arguing yourself here? You win!

No. Yes. Maybe.

I would be more concerned about the fact that if you ever had a Geocities website, Yahoo technically now owns the copyright to anything you ever published on it. That was a 'dirty little secret' (although it wouldn't have been if people bothered to read user agreements)

It wasn't exactly a dirty lil secret, it caused a huge uproar when they put that clause in....IIRC, they added a "our rights to your work expire when you remove it from the site" clause.. but such terms did become more widespread in the years after.

insaniak wrote:
Still not seeing a problem, to be honest. If you don't want to face that possibility, don't use their setting for your art/fiction/whatever.

Because it does not recognize parody, (such as a character hoisting a pint in a pub with Leman Russ). Effectively, they're claiming to own it, even if they have no legal right to make such a claim, such as is protected under fair use laws.

insaniak wrote:
Of course it doesn't. That won't happen, though. Regardless of what the Sky Is Falling crowd would have everyone on the internet believe, GW do have limits on how far they will push. To date, they have never had a problem with fan art or fan fiction, so long as it stays within the bounds of what they consider reasonable.

I might point out that what GW sees as 'reasonable' is not what most 'reasonable' people would see as 'reasonable'. Or even what most companies who's IP is their livelihood see as 'reasonable'. I do not notice, for example, DC or Marvel threatening to sue people for having their IP tattooed on them. (Which is a specifically mentioned no-no in GW's rules. Both due to payment and due to mixing their IP with a third party IP [since you are legally your own IP])

insaniak wrote:
The legal documentation is deliverately far harsher than reality. That's not an indication that they're going to set loose the hounds on little johnny with his page of Space Marine fan art. It's just covering themselves from whatever actual, real issues may arise down the track.

That's funny, people said the same thing about RIAA before they started suing seven year old kids for downloading mp3s.

insaniak wrote:
I would expect that privacy laws would go some way towards preventing them from just busting into your house and photographing your minis, though.

Yes, but if you take your mini down to the shop and they take a picture while you're playing, guess what?

You guys think Chapter House is bad? Stay away from Transformer 3rd party products, then. (This better for you than the car analogy, Kan?)

http://www.crazydevy.com/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFC-TOYS/123904231003542

http://www.fansproject.com/#

Especially note that 2nd link, where there are figures that are exactly Optimus Prime.

We tend to not have these arguments in non-GW fandoms...

BaronIveagh wrote:Because it does not recognize parody, (such as a character hoisting a pint in a pub with Leman Russ). Effectively, they're claiming to own it, even if they have no legal right to make such a claim, such as is protected under fair use laws.

That's because exactly where the legal line lies is something to be determined by the court, if it ever gets that far. GW aren't stating how the law actually works. They're stating what they feel is their legal entitlement. Exactly how far that can be or should be pushed is down to individual circumstances.

I might point out that what GW sees as 'reasonable' is not what most 'reasonable' people would see as 'reasonable'. Or even what most companies who's IP is their livelihood see as 'reasonable'.

Note that I did say 'what they consider' reasonable. Not what is reasonable. Because that also is down to interpretation.

I do not notice, for example, DC or Marvel threatening to sue people for having their IP tattooed on them. (Which is a specifically mentioned no-no in GW's rules. Both due to payment and due to mixing their IP with a third party IP [since you are legally your own IP])

And again, GW aren't threatening people with tattots. The artist is the one with the legal issue, although at least according to an article I was reading yesterday there is a potential case against the tattooee if they display their tattoos in public.

For what it's worth, the same article mentioned that Marvel has in fact tried to take a bunch of Tattoo artists to court over use of their characters in tattoo art. The suit was unsuccessful, apparently.

insaniak wrote:That's funny, people said the same thing about RIAA before they started suing seven year old kids for downloading mp3s.

How many times has that actually happened, though?

It's also a different ballpark. People (or at least most people) aren't going to stop buying CDs because the RIAA is a bit silly in the head. For a business like GW, though, there's really only so far they're going to be willing to push, because going too far is bad for business.

Yes, but if you take your mini down to the shop and they take a picture while you're playing, guess what?

You're in their shop.

Good thing you got out of the conversion business, Insaniak, before they took possession of your home!

insaniak wrote:
And again, GW aren't threatening people with tattots. The artist is the one with the legal issue, although at least according to an article I was reading yesterday there is a potential case against the tattooee if they display their tattoos in public.

For what it's worth, the same article mentioned that Marvel has in fact tried to take a bunch of Tattoo artists to court over use of their characters in tattoo art. The suit was unsuccessful, apparently.

Doesn't surprise me, Disney now owns Marvel, and, frankly, they're about as strange as GW. Maybe companies that 'borrow heavily' get more paranoid about IP since they're actually creatively (and morally to hear some ex house of mouse animators sell it) bankrupt?

insaniak wrote:
It's also a different ballpark. People (or at least most people) aren't going to stop buying CDs because the RIAA is a bit silly in the head. For a business like GW, though, there's really only so far they're going to be willing to push, because going too far is bad for business.

It's called tarnishment and it's a form of dilution in and of itself. Surprisingly, GW, for all it's concern about dilution, this one doesn't actually seem to occur to it most of the time, such as when fall comes and the Cease and Desist notices blossom.

And, actually, the net effect was actually after RIAA started, more people downloaded music (supposedly) over then internet then before.

insaniak wrote:
You're in their shop.

If I write a novel on my laptop while sitting in a Starbucks, that doesn't make the novel Starbuck's property. Also, GW doesn't just take pictures in events they sponsor or that take place in their stores.

BaronIveagh wrote:And, actually, the net effect was actually after RIAA started, more people downloaded music (supposedly) over then internet then before.

Of course, the trick is to actually prove cause and effect there. Were more people downloading music because of the RIAA's shenanigans, or simply because more people had access to high-speed broadband?

If I write a novel on my laptop while sitting in a Starbucks, that doesn't make the novel Starbuck's property.

Not even remotely the same thing.


And also getting sidetracked. What it comes down to is that GW makes a lot of claims on their legal page. Some of them seem a little extreme. Some of them are questionable as to GW's potential ability to actually ever enforce them. But most of the more silly stuff never will be. We can sit here all day and armchair theorise about whether or not they 'could' claim ownership of all of our converted models, our fanfiction, our bored telephone conversation squiggles or our left shins. But it's just not going to happen because GW gain nothing from it. It's on the legal page purely to cover all of their bases.

This thread has become the exact opposite of what it set out to not be: a legal discussion.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:OBJECTION! This thread has become the exact opposite of what it set out to not be: a legal discussion.

Fixed your post.

You're absolutely right. We should either get back on topic or close it.

GW intoxicated our little miniature hobby with IP battles and legal actions and its their choice... but for me what is sad is to see that allmost all web communities are contaminated with these IP war debates in every possible thread... I know its a valid subject as anyother but this fixation is getting way off hand and its ruining the experience for people who enjoy miniatures for what they just are and want to have abit of fun on online communities.

NAVARRO wrote:GW intoxicated our little miniature hobby with IP battles and legal actions and its their choice... but for me what is sad is to see that allmost all web communities are contaminated with these IP war debates in every possible thread... I know its a valid subject as anyother but this fixation is getting way off hand and its ruining the experience for people who enjoy miniatures for what they just are and want to have abit of fun on online communities.

I disagree with this. I think discussion about this topic is extremely important as what happens in court, especially with this case, can have a significant impact on the community and the industry. I think it is important for people in the community to be aware of what is going on, what it might mean, and how it might affect them; regardless of their personal opinions on the matter. Even if we don't know what is going on, even if we lock ourselves in a fantasy world of blissful ignorance, these things are still going to impact how we experience this hobby.

Besides, the ever apparent answer is to simply not read these threads if you don't want to be exposed to this discussion. They are labeled. But if you are going to read this thread and others like it and then argue that it is a disservice to the community to continue with these discussion, I will vehemently disagree with you.

Now, as to the topic of this thread, I believe what you're saying is that GW's litigiousness has had a negative impact on the wargaming community. Would say that this has caused harm? Is causing that harm amoral, even though one could argue, as you have done, that GW is within its rights to create these legal issues?

weeble1000 wrote:
Besides, the ever apparent answer is to simply not read these threads if you don't want to be exposed to this discussion. They are labeled. But if you are going to read this thread and others like it and then argue that it is a disservice to the community to continue with these discussion, I will vehemently disagree with you.

Now, as to the topic of this thread, I believe what you're saying is that GW's litigiousness has had a negative impact on the wargaming community. Would say that this has caused harm? Is causing that harm amoral, even though one could argue, as you have done, that GW is within its rights to create these legal issues?

In defense of Navarro, I believe he's speaking to the News/Rumor section---as it tends to wander into litigation land more often than necessary.

I lurk this thread to see people with actual education on the subject speak to it---but I wouldn't mind seeing legal discussion in the News/Rumor section going to the wayside. Especially when a great majority of it is based off non-attorney Google searches . It's frustrating to navigate those threads looking for updates to a company (Even non-CH!)---and read through a Matlock episode.

As I said though, this thread is good stuff in my eyes to keep abreast of the subject/matter at hand and I appreciate the insight users have offered.

weeble1000 wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:GW intoxicated our little miniature hobby with IP battles and legal actions and its their choice... but for me what is sad is to see that allmost all web communities are contaminated with these IP war debates in every possible thread... I know its a valid subject as anyother but this fixation is getting way off hand and its ruining the experience for people who enjoy miniatures for what they just are and want to have abit of fun on online communities.

I disagree with this. I think discussion about this topic is extremely important as what happens in court, especially with this case, can have a significant impact on the community and the industry. I think it is important for people in the community to be aware of what is going on, what it might mean, and how it might affect them; regardless of their personal opinions on the matter. Even if we don't know what is going on, even if we lock ourselves in a fantasy world of blissful ignorance, these things are still going to impact how we experience this hobby.

Besides, the ever apparent answer is to simply not read these threads if you don't want to be exposed to this discussion. They are labeled. But if you are going to read this thread and others like it and then argue that it is a disservice to the community to continue with these discussion, I will vehemently disagree with you.

Now, as to the topic of this thread, I believe what you're saying is that GW's litigiousness has had a negative impact on the wargaming community. Would say that this has caused harm? Is causing that harm amoral, even though one could argue, as you have done, that GW is within its rights to create these legal issues?

I dont mind the topics on the subject that are created for this effect, I even dont mind a small isolated remark on news threads about IP, what I do mind is the avalanche of IP posts on threads that have little to do with that... and those threads are getting way to common.

I know its a important debate ( and probably more important to me personally than you may think ) but these IP debates should not cut every forum / thread outhere in the diagonal, its not good for anyone IMO.

Your last paragraph is also a bit of what I was trying to get at... Its within GW choices to follow the path they choosed to, but I personally dont see this kind of hobby activity gaining much from the conflicts between the few companies that provide us the goods... also the impact it has done to the community in general ( everyones a IP expert in wargamming forums these days) is not something I wish to see my gamming net buddies doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AgeOfEgos wrote: It's frustrating to navigate those threads looking for updates to a company (Even non-CH!)---and read through a Matlock episode.
.

Exactly... and its not just here on dakka its everywere on the net gamming forums.

Platuan4th wrote:You guys think Chapter House is bad? Stay away from Transformer 3rd party products, then. (This better for you than the car analogy, Kan?)

http://www.crazydevy.com/

http://www.facebook.com/pages/TFC-TOYS/123904231003542

http://www.fansproject.com/#

Especially note that 2nd link, where there are figures that are exactly Optimus Prime.

We tend to not have these arguments in non-GW fandoms...

Only reason most of the TF stuff lies is because they are hiding out in china as import toys outside Hasbro's legal reach.

Wargaming is a euro/us centric fandom which means they are within the reach of international laws.

This idea of 'free exchange of other peoples ideas' because nothing is original and everything is derivative is not realistic. This idea that GW's Ip is not unique or defendable is an obtuse position to take and is simply not true. GW has Ip and trademarks and can very easily defend them.

Since people cannot stick to the topic I shall close the thread.