Trasvi wrote:

plastictrees wrote:It's not just about physical models though, which is why the auto industry is a bad analogy. Ford doesn't have series of books, games, illustrations etc. about the Ford Funkenhammer and it's various adventures which it releases prior to actually producing the Ford Funkenhammer.

GW does not have a series of books, games and illustrations relating to the Tervigon or the Doom of Malantai. They have short paragraphs and single images which are insufficient to make GW's expression of the concept of 'brood bug' and 'brain bug' unique enough to be protectable as characters. CHS most probably could not produce a Sanguinus or Horus model, because they have a lot of story behind them which makes them characters.

I'm talking in general terms as we don't really know exactly what issues GW is bringing up. You're the one referring specifically to the Doom model. Even in that case CH didn't produce a "brain bug" they produced a model that they literally called the Doom of Malantai.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Thanks a lot Chapterhouse. Thanks to you we won't be getting a second wave of tournament legal, proper Tyranid models.

I am now literally steaming with rage.

I'm really neither here nor there with Chapterhouse. I have their Storm Raven kits, and I think they're ace. I have some of their shoulder pads, and if I'd known they were metal rather than resin I would've ordered more. Some of their stuff is terrible, like their badly sculpted asymmetrical hammers, and some of their stuff is great, like their nifty combi-weapon kit.

I am also of the opinion that less hubris at the beginning could have had them avoid this whole situation. Having so many things labelled with GW names was unnecessary and stunk of Internet Bravado. It doesn't matter if their law advisors at the start said it was technically ok, it just wasn't necessary. The names that are up there now are 100 adequate and they should have always been that way.

But the idea that they're holding up GW releases is just nonsense, and even a forced manual shut down of my cynicism synapses can't help but see this as someone's pathetic attempt at trying to turn people against Chapterhouse. It wouldn't be GW doing it, but one of their White Knights - the type of White Knight that not only loves GW with every fibre of their being, but actually hates other game companies and especially 3rd party product makers (no, not your Aggy - your calls of 'parasite' are as overblown as they are hilarious, but you're morose and melancholy, not malicious).

Squigsquasher wrote:Thanks a lot Chapterhouse. Thanks to you we won't be getting a second wave of tournament legal, proper Tyranid models.

notsureifserious.jpg

I love how, based on rumors and conjecture, that people just assume that Chapterhouse is the reason that GW isn't producing models. It cannot be based on poor sales of a poor codex. It must be Chapterhouse. Not the other, 3 minimum, 3rd party companies that are making 'nid stuff. Just Chapterhouse. It amazes me that as a species we still exist with this many people around that cannot understand logic.

Now that being said, Nick, I believe that you do great work. I hope that when this is over that you are going to continue. Now since I do not have a warbuggie that isn't older than my kids I would like to see something in the near future. I do not care if you or GW or someone else produces it. I do not care if it is tourney legal. I just care about it looking awesome. Oh, and bits to make a warboss that is significantly larger than an ork boy.

The thing is that Chapterhouse is the only one specifically stating that their kits are part of the 40K universe. THIS is why GW is attacking them. If they had just described them as generic sci-fi...things, then there probably wouldn't have been a problem.

I think.

This was said when the whole thing blew up and seems to be relevant still:

CHS just were being open and honest
When we see "Shoulder Pads" we know what the intention is. It ain't for a 80's cossie for Barbie and Ken.

But somehow (ethically) this is somehow better than calling a spade a spade. Curse you CHS for being open about your products usage.

If the original point of OP would be true, then GW once again proves that it just cannot wrap it's head around the fact that law is not what they imagine it to be.

It would be trivially simple to release things in multiple waves. By registering the names of models as trademarks before the release of Codex for those which don't get a model immediately.

Frankly I hope that GWs "fortress wall" is shown to be consisting of paper and wooden frames.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:But somehow (ethically) this is somehow better than calling a spade a spade. Curse you CHS for being open about your products usage.

There's a difference between "These are for use with Space Marines" and "These are Space Marine parts".

So did CHS say they were SM parts?

Even if they did, how many people were fooled into thinking that they were made by GW and not Chapterhouse?

My point still stands. We all know that Scribor et al are making parts for GW products. We all know that Chapterhouse are making parts for GW products.

The rest is semantics.

At the start yeah they did. They didn't make shoulder pads for Salamanders, they made Salamander shoulder pads. They didn't make a conversion kit to make a Chaplain, they made a Chaplain conversion kit. Believe it or not, there is a difference.

And being 'fooled' isn't the point. I don't start selling cars and tell everyone that they're Ford cars when they're not.

And it's not semantics. Names actually do mean something. Scibor never mentions 40K products on his site. He makes Celtic Knights and Templar Knights and other guys that either don't reference 40K directly or are such generic terms (like 'Templar') that it doesn't matter. Chapterhouse didn't just make an Eldar Farseer on a bike kit, they called it an Eldar Farseer on a bike (rather than 'Conversion kit for an Eldar Jetbike' or 'Generic Non-Specific Non-40K Related Conversion Kit Name').

H.B.M.C. wrote:At the start yeah they did. They didn't make shoulder pads for Salamanders, they made Salamander shoulder pads. They didn't make a conversion kit to make a Chaplain, they made a Chaplain conversion kit. Believe it or not, there is a difference.

And they fixed that at the start of the whole debacle. Sure the original naming was wrong but not the current one.

As I understand it being fooled is important.
It is one of the reasons for bringing an action against a producer.
If customers genuinely believes they have purchased a GW product, for example, when it is the work of Ivor Ripov.

Again we still know what Scribor are doing whatever they call it, the function is still the same. No one is under the impression not even GW that Scribor generic space knight shoulder pads are for converting Scibor generic space knights.

Whatever you say or call it the spade is for digging a GW shaped hole.

Hena wrote:And they fixed that at the start of the whole debacle. Sure the original naming was wrong but not the current one.

I know that, but that's not what I'm saying (or even arguing). What they've got now is fine, but all I'm saying is I'm sure a lot of this could have been avoided if the current naming scheme had been adopted right from the start.

You are doubtless correct there HBMC but tbh it has at least given GW pause for thought.

CHS got lucky with the pro bono legal representation maybe, but if the outcome is to provide some guidelines in the future and maybe make GW reconsider some of their more aggressive and unecessary C&D actions then so be it.

Hena wrote:Frankly I hope that GWs "fortress wall" is shown to be consisting of paper and wooden frames.

Well you get what you pay for. They couldn't afford stone and concrete because they gave all that money to the shareholders.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:CHS got lucky with the pro bono legal representation maybe, but if the outcome is to provide some guidelines in the future and maybe make GW reconsider some of their more aggressive and unecessary C&D actions then so be it.

And maybe we'll get that Lammasu (SP?) head in the end!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Hena wrote:And they fixed that at the start of the whole debacle. Sure the original naming was wrong but not the current one.

I know that, but that's not what I'm saying (or even arguing). What they've got now is fine, but all I'm saying is I'm sure a lot of this could have been avoided if the current naming scheme had been adopted right from the start.

I doubt that. I think CH was making too much money with stuff involving 40k that GW wanted to bash them away. AFAIK they asked for destruction of moulds and not change in website. Only thing that made the game interesting was the pro-bono legal aid that CH got. Without that the GW might have gotten their way.

Hena wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Hena wrote:And they fixed that at the start of the whole debacle. Sure the original naming was wrong but not the current one.

I know that, but that's not what I'm saying (or even arguing). What they've got now is fine, but all I'm saying is I'm sure a lot of this could have been avoided if the current naming scheme had been adopted right from the start.

I doubt that. I think CH was making too much money with stuff involving 40k that GW wanted to bash them away. AFAIK they asked for destruction of moulds and not change in website. Only thing that made the game interesting was the pro-bono legal aid that CH got. Without that the GW might have gotten their way.

What nonsense.

I just wanted to clarify a few things regarding my own, earlier posts.

First of all I would like to apologise to the guys at Chapterhouse. I never imagined that my comments would cause so much debate, and I also feel in hindsight that whilst reading back through my comments they may have been a little inflammatory.

That was never my intention.

I am not a GW White Knight. I am an avid (some would say obsessive) 40K fan, and I do support GW when I think they are right but disagree with a lot of their current policies.

However I will admit that I do come into things from a GW perspective, and maybe that was unfair to the guys at CHS and for that I regret the tone of my posts.

I should also try to clarify some of the content, as it seems to be focussed mainly on CHS.

The court case with CHS may set a precedent that would allow other third party suppliers to challenge GW over their IP. That's why Thunderwolves were mentioned, as well as some other 3rd party products.

So although the suit against CHS may be testing the water it may have wider implications in the long run, but again I am not sure how fair it would be to blame CHS for that as we don't have all the facts.

And I didn't say that there would not be a Tyranid second wave, just that under advisement from their legal team it had been delayed.

I don't know exactly what delayed means as I don't know when it was due to be released, but I know that some of the models due have been in the planing process for over two years.

There are new 'Nid models coming, but they will be White Dwarf additions to the Codex, similar to the Ogre Kingdoms or Eldar Night Spinner (?).

They will be combi-kits which will allegedly allow GW to skirt the IP issue, as well as a large kit along the lines size wise of the Stone Horn / Terrorgheist.

There was mentioned a possibilty that the lawsuit may also be holding up other releases, but purely because their development is on hold whilst legal advice is gained.

I also just want to point out that this was a rumour, albeit from a good source, and should be treated as such.

If I had known how much fuss would have been caused I probably wouldn't have posted at all, but I would like to say I don't have an axe to grind with CHS as I don't know the whole story and wish my original comments had been more neutral. So apologies to Nick et al.

What nerd drama in our community. Thanks for the Rifts pics, very nostalgic. That game sure was fun.

I said it, and I'll say it again:
It's GW's own fault. Compnies like CH only exist because GW fails to deliver what the people want to buy.
Case in point, the Ogre Release. Nobody is going to produce Mournfang Cavarly, because they are already official models.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Hena wrote:And they fixed that at the start of the whole debacle. Sure the original naming was wrong but not the current one.

I know that, but that's not what I'm saying (or even arguing). What they've got now is fine, but all I'm saying is I'm sure a lot of this could have been avoided if the current naming scheme had been adopted right from the start.

Thats what I was saying!

[But for the record I do not think the website was changed until after legal action was begun]
Come join me on this charger HBMC.

"Two little boys had two little toys
Each had a wooden horse
Gaily they played each summers day
Warriors both of cause............."

Ahem....er...sorry....er.... what were we discussing?

Squigsquasher wrote:I am now literally steaming with rage.

Could you send pics? I've never seen anyone literally steam with rage before. Does the steam come out of your sweat glands or something?

H.B.M.C. wrote:And being 'fooled' isn't the point. I don't start selling cars and tell everyone that they're Ford cars when they're not.

Yeah, being 'fooled' is kind of the whole point, at least for trademarks. Copyright infringement tends to be more mechanical (Is element X copyrighted? Does it exist in products A and B? Is element Y copyrighted? Does it exist in products A and B?)

Warboss Gubbinz wrote:Simpler way of saying it: You can't sue me for something you yourself are guilty of.

Did i get this right, andrew, biccat?

Sort of. There are two different paths this line of thinking can take. First, are GW's works actually copyrighted and second, does the defense of "unclean hands" apply?

The first inquiry, whether GW's works are copyright-eligible, is a question of law. If GW copied the original works it is not the original author and cannot obtain copyright protection for their works under the copyright statute. If GW's works are merely derivative of the original works they copied from, then they also cannot claim copyright protection on the new work as a whole.

The second inquiry, unclean hands, is a question of equity. When a court sits in equity they try to decide what is equitable (fair) to both parties. The defense of unclean hands basically says (as you said above) you can't sue me for something you yourself are guilty of.

There's a higher standard for a finding of unclean hands. If GW innocently but technically copied someone else's work, the first defense would be good and the second not. But if GW maliciously and intentionally copied someone else's work, then you'd have a better case of unclean hands.

plastictrees wrote:

Hena wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Hena wrote:And they fixed that at the start of the whole debacle. Sure the original naming was wrong but not the current one.

I know that, but that's not what I'm saying (or even arguing). What they've got now is fine, but all I'm saying is I'm sure a lot of this could have been avoided if the current naming scheme had been adopted right from the start.

I doubt that. I think CH was making too much money with stuff involving 40k that GW wanted to bash them away. AFAIK they asked for destruction of moulds and not change in website. Only thing that made the game interesting was the pro-bono legal aid that CH got. Without that the GW might have gotten their way.

What nonsense.

In what sense? That they were making money from people who liked 40k? Note that I considered that GW doesn't want others to start making money with anything regards to 40k. Most other companies (like Kings of War) produce fantasy miniatures. Pig Iron makes heads and human infantry. Perhaps I could have written 'any money' instead of 'too much money', but in this case they might be equivalent for GW.

Hena wrote:

plastictrees wrote:

Hena wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Hena wrote:And they fixed that at the start of the whole debacle. Sure the original naming was wrong but not the current one.

I know that, but that's not what I'm saying (or even arguing). What they've got now is fine, but all I'm saying is I'm sure a lot of this could have been avoided if the current naming scheme had been adopted right from the start.

I doubt that. I think CH was making too much money with stuff involving 40k that GW wanted to bash them away. AFAIK they asked for destruction of moulds and not change in website. Only thing that made the game interesting was the pro-bono legal aid that CH got. Without that the GW might have gotten their way.

What nonsense.

In what sense? That they were making money from people who liked 40k? Note that I considered that GW doesn't want others to start making money with anything regards to 40k. Most other companies (like Kings of War) produce fantasy miniatures. Pig Iron makes heads and human infantry. Perhaps I could have written 'any money' instead of 'too much money', but in this case they might be equivalent for GW.

In the sense that you are talking nonsense. The sentences that you are typing are nonsensical.
"GW sued CH because they were making money!". Brilliant.

Kanluwen wrote:Furthermore, it's also worth noting that the Mobile Infantry that Heinlein described wore what would be considered 'battle suits' and not 'powered armor'.

...Don't look at me like that. I can let the nerd flag fly here on Dakka, curse you!

Actually, this is not correct. The suits in Starship Troopers absolutely were powered armor. The suits are specifically described as magnifying the strength of the wearer by using a negative feedback system to match and magnify the natural movements of the wearer. There is a line that states that a MI in a suit could swap hugs with an ape, and the ape would be crushed. Additionally, the suits had "jump" capability. If the wearer made a particularly vigorous jumping motion, it would kick in a jet assisted extended jump.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

plastictrees wrote:How could the same be said of CH designers? Change what in my post to CH related items? I mention one imaginary scenario and no GW or CH items whatsoever. Really, explain what you're talking about. How is drawing inspiration from movies, books etc. the same as reproducing imagery used by another miniature company to be used in the game that miniature company produces? I'm not even making a moral judgement here, I'm just saying the "GW is not the originalz!" scenario that everyone always trots out is not the same thing at all.

Watching a movie and using that for inspiration to build a model is no different than reading a codex and using that as inspiration for building a model. Heck, I could even use your model for inspiration for building my model, as long as it wasn't so identical as to be considered a copy.

I only hope that this will encourage GW to revise their current marketign strategy....or lack thereof.

As has been stated several times. if they release production/pre-relase images of WIPS or 3-ups or greens etc then this whole issue could be avoided as they would basically be announcing to the world "Hey, look at this model that we have made and will be releasing at some point!"

from what i understand from reading this, that would establish their copyright and they could still keep the whole wave release schedule.

biccat wrote:
The first inquiry, whether GW's works are copyright-eligible, is a question of law. If GW copied the original works it is not the original author and cannot obtain copyright protection for their works under the copyright statute. If GW's works are merely derivative of the original works they copied from, then they also cannot claim copyright protection on the new work as a whole.

The second inquiry, unclean hands, is a question of equity. When a court sits in equity they try to decide what is equitable (fair) to both parties. The defense of unclean hands basically says (as you said above) you can't sue me for something you yourself are guilty of.

There's a higher standard for a finding of unclean hands. If GW innocently but technically copied someone else's work, the first defense would be good and the second not. But if GW maliciously and intentionally copied someone else's work, then you'd have a better case of unclean hands.

Do you feel, in your personal opinion, that the defense of unclean hands has some merit and this is why the court is trying to force a settlement or is the court's decision to push a settlement more a procedural thing like telling two kids that they should have worked it out before their parents got involved?

There's a lot of people posting that they can't possibly see how GW could get in trouble with Chapterhouse of all people if they release their Farseer Jetbikes.

I stopped reading on page 6, so forgive me if this has already been posted.

The Eldar Farseer and Chapterhouse Doomseer are similar with noticable difference. It's understandable that GW is having a hard time suing CH over it.

Now theres a Doomseer on a Jetbike as an established and legit model. If GW makes a Farseer on a Jetbike, then CH can claim their design of a Doomseer on Jetbike was copied by GW.

Silly, idinit?

agnosto wrote:Do you feel, in your personal opinion, that the defense of unclean hands has some merit and this is why the court is trying to force a settlement or is the court's decision to push a settlement more a procedural thing like telling two kids that they should have worked it out before their parents got involved?

In my personal, not professional, opinion, I think a defense of unclean hands as to the source of GW's intellectual property would not be successful.

However, the defense of unclean hands as related to GW's actions during trial (particularly if this rumor turns out to have originated with GW) may have a better chance.

I don't know why the Court decided to push a settlement. It may be in the local rules to require a settlement conference. Given both sides' behavior during discovery, I don't think a settlement is likely. If there is a settlement, it's going to be bad for GW (that is, Chapterhouse won't be shut down, which appears to be GW's objective).

biccat wrote:I don't know why the Court decided to push a settlement. It may be in the local rules to require a settlement conference. Given both sides' behavior during discovery, I don't think a settlement is likely. If there is a settlement, it's going to be bad for GW (that is, Chapterhouse won't be shut down, which appears to be GW's objective).

I kind of agree with this. I spent several years working a job where collections and small claims litigation was a sizeable portion of my job. There were several counties that had a mandatory meeting with an arbitrator before we were allowed to go to trial. Personally, I always thought this requirement was a complete joke, because I wouldn't have wasted my time and money filing a suit if I had managed to come up with a mutually agreeable arrangement beforehand.

Would I be correct in thinking that a settlement conference involves the two sides sitting down to thrash out some enforceable agreement to resolve their differences without recourse to a trial and verdict?

CH being able to sue GW if GW released models bear too striking a resemblance to CH releases (that are presumably inspired by GW) is an interesting twist.

Small wonder GW is trying to hunker down and lawyer up, but really I don't see it as being anything but good for the consumer. GW can either make models at a reasonable price on a reasonable release period, or somebody else will.

So by that logic if Microsoft doesn't publish a new Halo game "in a reasonable release period", then Sony can?

GW owns Warhammer. It's their property, as should be evidenced by the fact that FFG and THQ have to license the property from them and not from the public.

Sony wont release Halo, but they can sure as hell release Space Greeks: An armored soldier vs purple aliens combat game!

Saldiven - In the context of civil litigation, settlement typically saves everybody both money and time: Plaintiff, Defendant, and the Court. Of particular importance is the Court. Both state and federal courts have a lot to handle, and a responsibility to give criminal defendants a speedy trial. They are also public institutions funded by taxpayers. If a civil dispute can be resolved with minimal involvement on the part of the court, this is beneficial to the public. In the case of a jury trial, you are also requiring citizens to give up their time, sometimes for weeks or even months. People have to take time off of work, transport themselves to and from court, and be away from their homes and families. Many employers do not compensate employees for jury duty, and many courts offer minimal remuneration. Finally, trials are not always interesting to watch and facing morally or ethically troubling issues can place a significant mental burden on jurors.

I understand your point about settlement conferences sometimes feeling like a joke, but I personally believe that litigants should make every effort to resolve a conflict outside of the courtroom. Many state and federal courts have rules that aim to promote the resolution of conflicts outside of the courtroom. The Northern District of Illinois, for example, requires parties to make a good faith effort to resolve a dispute before resorting to motion practice. These types rules and procedures are intended to ease the inevitable public cost of litigation.

Kanluwen wrote:So by that logic if Microsoft doesn't publish a new Halo game "in a reasonable release period", then Sony can?

GW owns Warhammer. It's their property, as should be evidenced by the fact that FFG and THQ have to license the property from them and not from the public.

No, because have already established all the particulars of a Halo game, presumably by copywiritng the likeness of the characters etc. For Sony to produce a Halo game they presumably need to buy the copyrights from Microsoft.

The difference, i think (i'm just a lay-person so i may be way out on this) is that yes, GW did invent the concept of a Tervigon (for example). But by never releasing pics of an actual model they never technically copywrited the physical likeness, thereby leaving the way open for a third party (in this case ChapterHouse) to produce and copywright their own likeness of the concept. I suppose that they cant legally call it a tervigon or say that they created the concept, but then i dont think the concept is something you can copyright anyway.

weeble1000 wrote:Saldiven - In the context of civil litigation, settlement typically saves everybody both money and time: Plaintiff, Defendant, and the Court. Of particular importance is the Court. Both state and federal courts have a lot to handle, and a responsibility to give criminal defendants a speedy trial. They are also public institutions funded by taxpayers. If a civil dispute can be resolved with minimal involvement on the part of the court, this is beneficial to the public. In the case of a jury trial, you are also requiring citizens to give up their time, sometimes for weeks or even months. People have to take time off of work, transport themselves to and from court, and be away from their homes and families. Many employers do not compensate employees for jury duty, and many courts offer minimal remuneration. Finally, trials are not always interesting to watch and facing morally or ethically troubling issues can place a significant mental burden on jurors.

I understand your point about settlement conferences sometimes feeling like a joke, but I personally believe that litigants should make every effort to resolve a conflict outside of the courtroom. Many state and federal courts have rules that aim to promote the resolution of conflicts outside of the courtroom. The Northern District of Illinois, for example, requires parties to make a good faith effort to resolve a dispute before resorting to motion practice. These types rules and procedures are intended to ease the inevitable public cost of litigation.

Yeah, I understand why the courts want it to happen. I was just being a little bitter because of our position. I worked collections in a sub-prime consumer loan company. Typically, the only reason I would even file suit on someone was because they didn't make payments on loans and either refused to contact the branch after months of collection activity, willfully lied about payment arrangements, or flat out said they were not going to honor their debt. As a collector, you get tired of being lied to regularly, and get a bit bitter. I honestly cannot think of a single time that we worked out an arrangement in front of the arbitrator that the borrower was still honoring six months later, and that's after eight years working in the industry. I really just wanted to get my judgment and file my garnishment and be done with it.

Here's one that never made sense to me, either. In some counties, if I filed suit on someone, and they didn't file and answer, then I immediately got my default judgement after the response date had passed. Courts in the metro Atlanta area, however, still insist on having a court hearing even if the defendant never answers the complaint. If I, as the plaintiff, fail to show up, the case is tossed out. If I do show up and the plaintiff doesn't, I get my default judgment. If we both show up, we still have to go through a hearing, even though I will still get my default judgment since the defendant didn't answer the complaint in time. It seems like they're just wasting the courts time to even schedule the hearing rather than immediately issuing the judgment like most of the rural counties do.

That's one of those big parts that bug me(no pun intended).

The idea that GW needs to release pictures of an actual model to protect the physical likeness, when it's inevitable that it will conceptually look like the artwork on page 52 of the Tyranid Codex is irksome. It's irksome to a degree that I cannot quite express beyond "RARGH".

I have no problem with it. Markets are efficient, and when there's money to be made, somebody will step in and make it. GW have privilege of first refusal because they create the concepts and the frameworks, but they are then also forced to execute their option in a timely manner. i.e., no Thunderwulf debacle where these models were literally THE THING for a year or more and still people are forced to convert from WH Fantasy wolf-oids or buy 3rd party (and no, a monopose $60 pewter hero sub-in has been proven time and again to be refused by the market--Blood Crushers being the first example, TWolves the second).

The market is literally forcing GW to respond to its consumer base. I'm sure there will be some, like those H.B.M.C. dub 'white knights', who say that this is either not fair or not right, but it is impossible for a company to do anything but evolve with the market and remain solvent. Kodak, Sam Goody, Tower Records, Blockbuster were all once very big names. Now they're fringe, or dead. GW has largely created its own market so it's unlikely that it can implode in the same spectacular fashion, but clearly the player base has told it 'less pyrovore, more tervigon' and GW will simply give revenue potential away if it ignores it.

Kanluwen wrote:That's one of those big parts that bug me(no pun intended).

The idea that GW needs to release pictures of an actual model to protect the physical likeness, when it's inevitable that it will conceptually look like the artwork on page 52 of the Tyranid Codex is irksome. It's irksome to a degree that I cannot quite express beyond "RARGH".

Copyright only protects the expression of an idea. GW hasn't expressed the idea of a Tervigon as a sculpture yet, so there is nothing to protect.

Their picture? It's protected - I can't make photocopies and stick them in my new "space alien lizard-insects vs battle armored superhumans on a derelict spaceship" game's rulebook. But simply having a sketch isn't going to prevent me from being inspired by that sketch to sculpt a large 6-legged space lizard-bug with three rows of ventral vents on an armored carapace, which happens to release additional smaller space lizard-bugs. That's not how copyright works.

Saldiven wrote:Actually, this is not correct. The suits in Starship Troopers absolutely were powered armor. The suits are specifically described as magnifying the strength of the wearer by using a negative feedback system to match and magnify the natural movements of the wearer. There is a line that states that a MI in a suit could swap hugs with an ape, and the ape would be crushed. Additionally, the suits had "jump" capability. If the wearer made a particularly vigorous jumping motion, it would kick in a jet assisted extended jump.

I think Kan is distinguishing the "powered armor" from "battle armor," in that the suits from Starship Troopers offered far more capability than the "normal" concept of powered armor - it's not just physical protection & strength enhancement (like 40k Power Armor), but also all that other functionality you mention (plus integrated weaponry). The Starship Troopers suits have more in common with Tau Battlesuits than Marine Power Armor.

Kanluwen wrote:

This line about "Heinlein's starship troopers predate space marines by three decades respectively".

Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" and its concept of 'Space Marines' was predated by the "Lensman" series by Edward Elmer Smith(With the "Galactic Marines" appearing in 1937) and even he was beaten to the punch by Bob Olsen who wrote two short stories called "Captain Brink of the Space Marine"(1932) and "The Space Marines and the Slavers" (1936).

If you're going to say that Heinlein "defined the concept" of soldiers in power armor with guns though, it's a far more accurate statement.

I wouldn't consider Star Wars' Stormtroopers to be an example of the "Space Marine" concept though. They're not wearing power armor, and they're not Marines. The Empire actually has Marines, and they wear something totally different.

Furthermore, it's also worth noting that the Mobile Infantry that Heinlein described wore what would be considered 'battle suits' and not 'powered armor'.

...Don't look at me like that. I can let the nerd flag fly here on Dakka, curse you!

Oh I dont blame you. Heinlein is about as far back as I go in SF. I'm ore a fantasy pulp guy. I have no doubt there were works before Starship troopers. I just pulled that and starwars out of thin air as two examples. I'm sure there are more if we really sat down and looked.

And why not storm troopers? Looking back at the newer clone troopers, its obvious you have genetic created soldiers in power armor- storm troopers are an extension of that.

To be fair to GW, they did use to show upcoming releases and WIP models. They stopped when the Dark Eldar Codex was stolen from a display, photocopied, and put out onto the internet. Plus, they might think that being hazy about incoming releases will keep people hanging on in suspense.

Janthkin wrote:I think Kan is distinguishing the "powered armor" from "battle armor," in that the suits from Starship Troopers offered far more capability than the "normal" concept of powered armor - it's not just physical protection & strength enhancement (like 40k Power Armor), but also all that other functionality you mention (plus integrated weaponry). The Starship Troopers suits have more in common with Tau Battlesuits than Marine Power Armor.

That is an excellent point that I had absolutely not considered. I have to agree that the MI suits in Starship Troopers had more in common with Tau suits than Space Marine armor in that MI suits had a variety of integral weapon systems including flamers, automated grenade launchers, and nuclear warhead launchers.

I stand corrected.

carmachu wrote:
And why not storm troopers? Looking back at the newer clone troopers, its obvious you have genetic created soldiers in power armor- storm troopers are an extension of that.

Stormtroopers are kind of/sort of an extension of the Clone Troopers.

Canonically, the majority of Stormtroopers by the time of "A New Hope" were actually humans, not clones. The cloning programs that the Republic/Empire used relied upon genetic templates that decayed over time--by the "third generation" of Fett clones, you were essentially copying a copy of a copy. Which didn't work out so great.

However the biggest reason why I discount Stormtroopers is that they're not wearing any form of "power armor". Their equipment is just armor. The "Spacetroopers" would be the closest example I'd be willing to use to make an Adeptus Astartes/Stormtrooper comparison, as they are kind of/sort of the only biological Stormtroopers wearing a form of powered armor.
The "Darktrooper" project that we've seen in the Dark Forces games was a war droid, shaped like a Stormtrooper.

Squigsquasher wrote:To be fair to GW, they did use to show upcoming releases and WIP models. They stopped when the Dark Eldar Codex was stolen from a display, photocopied, and put out onto the internet. Plus, they might think that being hazy about incoming releases will keep people hanging on in suspense.

They stopped with the previews and WIP stuff a good bit before Dark Eldar I think. I've not heard that about something being stolen though.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:To be fair to GW, they did use to show upcoming releases and WIP models. They stopped when the Dark Eldar Codex was stolen from a display, photocopied, and put out onto the internet. Plus, they might think that being hazy about incoming releases will keep people hanging on in suspense.

They stopped with the previews and WIP stuff a good bit before Dark Eldar I think. I've not heard that about something being stolen though.

They did use to show upcoming releases and WIP models at Games Days. Dark Eldar was the last one they actually showed within that 'six month window' that we used to get, if I remember right.

Showing WIP might also be a good way to protect their IP because they obviously have documented evidence of the expression of the model.... Not sure if it would legally work out that way but it makes sense.

Kanluwen wrote:That's one of those big parts that bug me(no pun intended).

The idea that GW needs to release pictures of an actual model to protect the physical likeness, when it's inevitable that it will conceptually look like the artwork on page 52 of the Tyranid Codex is irksome. It's irksome to a degree that I cannot quite express beyond "RARGH".

Not quite as irksome as it is for Tyranid players that GW didn't release models for the Tervigon, Spod, Flyrant and Tyrannofex.

I can see the law behind it. It's the visual equivalent of the putative novel about the collection of Ford cars.

In other words, if you want to copyright a sculpture you have to copyright the sculpture, not something else.

Some comments:

1.) Chapterhouse had plans for releasing a model that could be used for a Doom of Malanthai and indeed, that may have been the triiger for GW's legal action. But Chapterhouse never released it and it is complete speculation what they would have called it officially.

2.) Let's be realistic: If GW releases a tervigon kit, its sales will make all 3rd party tervigon sales look insignificant. Most people are not aware of 3rd party models. Of the few aware, not all like the models or dare to buy non-sanctioned models ("are they tournament legal?"). Of those, not all can actually buy them (target customers being teens without a credt card and a low income). So even when the market is flooded with 3rd party thunderwolves (not by CHapterhouse BTW), GW could still make more money of thunderwolf kits than all 3rd parties together.

3.) The rumour is not about Chapterhouse being guilty of delaying GW releases, but GW's obviously unrealistic overreaction to the lawsuit being guilty of delaying these releases. There is no reason to believe that GW might be sued for making models of their own concept sketches, judges are of course considering who made the first concept.

4.) Everyone working within the Fantasy/SciFi genre is aware of working in a common pool of ideas, with only the mix making each work distinct and original new ideas beng rare. All except the GW management and GW legal. That's why there are so few lawsuits. And that's why the GW lawsuit is so odd and doomed to fail.

5.) I can't see how GW can gain anything financially from this lawsuit (and the witch hunt against fan websites). It costs a lot of money. it hurts the reputation, it hurts inter-corporational artistic communication, inspiration and cooperation, creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust and repression among creative people working in the business. 3rd party market isn't hurting GW sales but enhancing them.

6.) IIRC the "dirty hands" argument was one point of the first general reply to GW's accusations before court. It was one point among many.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I know that, but that's not what I'm saying (or even arguing). What they've got now is fine, but all I'm saying is I'm sure a lot of this could have been avoided if the current naming scheme had been adopted right from the start.

Again, this lawsuit is not about making changes to the website, it is about destroying the moulds and stopping the production.

Saldiven wrote:Watching a movie and using that for inspiration to build a model is no different than reading a codex and using that as inspiration for building a model. Heck, I could even use your model for inspiration for building my model, as long as it wasn't so identical as to be considered a copy.

That is not correct. A design appearing in a movie requires concept sketches, a 3d model and a considerable time on the screen with multiple view, background story etc. So it is much more defined than just a small rough sketch and already has an existing model that can be copied.

Kilkrazy wrote:Would I be correct in thinking that a settlement conference involves the two sides sitting down to thrash out some enforceable agreement to resolve their differences without recourse to a trial and verdict?

If we interpret the recent lawsuit documents correctly, the judge has delegated both parties to another judge to talk about an out of court settlement, but talks let to no result.

Kroothawk wrote: Let's be realistic: If GW releases a tervigon kit, its sales will make all 3rd party tervigon sales look insignificant. Most people are not aware of 3rd party models. Of the few aware, not all like the models or dare to buy non-sanctioned models ("are they tournament legal?")

In my personal experience, it's normal and expected behavior for corporations and bullies of all stripes to be less concerned with the large piece of pie in their hands then with the forkful of pie someone else managed to get.

Kroothawk wrote:Again, this lawsuit is not about making changes to the website, it is about destroying the moulds and stopping the production.

I know that, but I doubt GW would have paid all that much attention if CHS hadn't named everything the way they had at the beginning. You notice that they're not suing everyone else.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Again, this lawsuit is not about making changes to the website, it is about destroying the moulds and stopping the production.

I know that, but I doubt GW would have paid all that much attention if CHS hadn't named everything the way they had at the beginning. You notice that they're not suing everyone else.

They probably would like to do the others but CHS is their best chance for a start.

Ouze wrote:

Kroothawk wrote: Let's be realistic: If GW releases a tervigon kit, its sales will make all 3rd party tervigon sales look insignificant. Most people are not aware of 3rd party models. Of the few aware, not all like the models or dare to buy non-sanctioned models ("are they tournament legal?")

In my personal experience, it's normal and expected behavior for corporations and bullies of all stripes to be less concerned with the large piece of pie in their hands then with the forkful of pie someone else managed to get.

It's normal and expected behavior of pretty much every human being.

For an example, look at posts here in threads about X army getting something new. Almost inevitably, there will be a half dozen posts about "how unfair it is that X army gets this, while Y army doesn't".

Either GW already knew that artwork isn't a reasonable medium to prevent copying of an item into a miniature or they should so get sued themselves by WoTC for this little item amongst others...

Released in 1998 and the Tau didn't get here until 2001. Maybe its just me, but I see a slightly more than subtle similarity.

Kroothawk wrote:Some comments:

2.) Let's be realistic: If GW releases a tervigon kit, its sales will make all 3rd party tervigon sales look insignificant. Most people are not aware of 3rd party models. Of the few aware, not all like the models or dare to buy non-sanctioned models ("are they tournament legal?"). Of those, not all can actually buy them (target customers being teens without a credt card and a low income). So even when the market is flooded with 3rd party thunderwolves (not by CHapterhouse BTW), GW could still make more money of thunderwolf kits than all 3rd parties together.

5.) I can't see how GW can gain anything financially from this lawsuit (and the witch hunt against fan websites). It costs a lot of money. it hurts the reputation, it hurts inter-corporational artistic communication, inspiration and cooperation, creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust and repression among creative people working in the business. 3rd party market isn't hurting GW sales but enhancing them.

These 2 points are dead on target.

I know that Reaper produced a "beholder" model on a flight stand that had 10 eyestalks and was ad dead ringer for the WotC beholder. It was removed from the product line and the molds were destroyed, it is my understanding that a C&D from WotC was the reason. Reaper made new eyebeasts that were similar and did not have 10 eyestalks, and made sure that the product line did not use WotC names that were registered, example the mindflayers=bathalian, bullete=burrowing horror, rust monster=Oxidation beast. Plus many other examples.

Reaper still has beholder-like models just not called beholders.
WotC still sells Beholders.

Both companies are making money and meeting the hobby demands.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Again, this lawsuit is not about making changes to the website, it is about destroying the moulds and stopping the production.

I know that, but I doubt GW would have paid all that much attention if CHS hadn't named everything the way they had at the beginning. You notice that they're not suing everyone else.

They probably would like to do the others but CHS is their best chance for a start.

Yeah, lets jump to that conclusion for no reason at all. Those bastards, potentially suing all those other companies in our imagination.

plastictrees wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Again, this lawsuit is not about making changes to the website, it is about destroying the moulds and stopping the production.

I know that, but I doubt GW would have paid all that much attention if CHS hadn't named everything the way they had at the beginning. You notice that they're not suing everyone else.

They probably would like to do the others but CHS is their best chance for a start.

Yeah, lets jump to that conclusion for no reason at all. Those bastards, potentially suing all those other companies in our imagination.

Wait, I'm not certain I get which "bastards" you're referring to here, as you seem to be taking umbrage at the idea that GW is profligate with their litigation threats... which would be odd, considering the available evidence that they, you know, are profligate with the threats of litigation.

Sorry to have quoted your whole post below but it seemed the easiest way to reference/address it.

You are right I did ask and I thank you for your efforts put in to the response.

Firstly I think it's worth re-reading my text you quoted as what you have posted doesn't really directly address my statement, I am not saying this to be awkward but to draw the argument in more closely. Again can someone show me where GW have positively stolen a miniature form, ripped off current concept or ridden on the back of another current product out there. GW most certainly have distinctive designs on all their product with enough difference for them not to be confused with other miniature product out there. They also certainly do not market their product on the back of another minatures game currently in the market place.

GW have being going for 30+ years and if the below is the best we can come up with on ripped IP then it's pretty thin at best.

I have given the respect due and read all the thread posted below. When you read them (apart from 8 as it wouldn't open) they are all really hearsay or specualtive on C&D's being issued. I cannot find any concrete evidence so again this would support my notion of why GW hasn't been pulled up legally already. Actually when you read some of the threads some posters completely debunk the C&D being issued later on in the thread. This makes it very hard to know if any of these C&D's are based on fact or are pure speculation/wishful thinking. I can imagine GW may have been issued C&D's in their past but it seems they also may have had the good sense to C&D before entering a legal battle if there ever was a possible one? If this meant pulling product I guess this is what they did e.g. your Tomb Kings example. I do still think it's weird that someone could claim exclusivity to the ancient Egyptian culture though?

With regards to a lot of the artwork. You could quite easily say Star Wars ripped that Tau similar one for the Death Star Trooper, actually it's even more of a match if you pull off the obvious NBC/gas mask on the front just leaving the upper shell. I think GW's Tau deign is distinctive enough not to look the same but accept there may have been inspiration drawn.

With regards to all the robot pic's. There was lots of artwork going around those days and some early models for that matter, I remember as I had some. You could as easily agure Battletech ripped a lot of ideas but then I would disagree they cloned ideas/product. Jeez I used to doodle robots that I bet had some similarity to Tau. Ultimately GW players had the appatite for another race and GW gave that with their own unique take on whatever had gone before. That picture of the red trooper only draws some similarity with the helmet and thats where it really ends for me.

The only real point I will take is the Aliens one although when Alien was released you could argue they Alien race wasn't really fully fleshed out in the film and I am sure many people started drawing up concepts for a whole race on release of the film. Also back in those days film merchandise wasn't as exploited as it is today and I doubt the company behind the film had any issue with games companies borrowing some of their ideas. When Aliens was released you could argue there was a much more open design on the race visualised but again I cannot remember the film company exploiting the films rights in miniature gaming form at the time. I also remember Rogue Trader had Genestealer concepts in it and although a year after release of Aliens. I would imagine artwork for RT had been done earlier. I do think GW s' take is removed enough from Aliens design to not make the two similar enough to be confused with each other.

I cannot take the Terminator example at all. That is a design that is just too generically based on human form coated in metal and not really that destinctive.

Coming on to the Stormtrooper example (not quite sure why the pictures aren't being picked up when quoting your post). This is a trick on the eye in my opinion. I have been a fan of 40K and Star Wars since both their releases. There is no similarity between the two physically or internally in any shape or form. I would also wager Lucasfilm would have been over GW like a rash if they thought they were similar enough. The only similarity in those pictures is they are white hence why I say it is a trick on the eye.

In truth I am not a GW fanboy and actually like a lot of miniatures based games and have owned many over the years.

Where I think GW are at is CHS have skirted too close to their product and GW are trying to stop Chaos forces pouring out of the eye of terror. I would imagine they are worried that if they do not draw a line in the sand at this point IP infringements could only get worse. I can uderstand this especially when CHS were directly referencing their product at one point and still display GW artwork to categorise the shoulder pads and mostly show all their bits on GW models. Plus the speculated model release.

If GW do manage to win the case. The ramifications could be much bigger than CHS and have an impact on all other 3rd parties. This I imagine would not be favourable to a lot of poeple out there. If GW lose it could be open season on their product and I do not see how this benefits the players/fans/collectors of the game. It would just make it harder to get product out to those who want it and reduce profits again making things more difficult in a number of ways. While some may relish this thought I do not. Tearing down a great thing because you don't agree with some aspects of how GW release product, their product strategy, market product or are over controlling in some areas are not really solid grounds for damaging a company who produce a great product and yes I do not agree with some of their principles but that doesn't mean I want to see them ground into dust although I do like Dust Tactics

Once the horse has bolted there is no point closing the stable door?

Kroothawk wrote:

Chimaera wrote:Can you show me positively where GW have stolen someones creative work in miniature form, completely ripped off a current concept/product or ridden on the back of someone elses efforts in the current market place? Like I said surely they would have been pulled up by now.

Always difficult to influence the good common sence of a lynch mob, but as you asked:

1.) They got a C&D by Battletech in the late 80s ( http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=315559 esp. EldarWolf)

2.) They couldn't release these tomb king models, being a too close rip off from the movie. http://www.collecting-citadel-miniatures.com/wiki/index.php/Tomb_Kings_-_Unreleased

3.) They probably received a C&D for the Diaz daemonettes, that disappeared from the stores without a warning.

4.) Rumours of a C&D for their Car Wars clone, not confirmed.

5.) Michael Moorcocks Chaos Star that GW claims the copyright of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_of_Chaos

6.) Roger Dean pic from 70s, ( http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?p=70190 )



plus



7.) http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/386075.page

8.) http://web.archive.org/web/20071125132841/http://ca.geocities.com/crazy40kguy/namesandhomages.html

Buzzsaw wrote:Wait, I'm not certain I get which "bastards" you're referring to here, as you seem to be taking umbrage at the idea that GW is profligate with their litigation threats... which would be odd, considering the available evidence that they, you know, are profligate with the threats of litigation.

A core part of GW's case is that the lower quality Chapterhouse bits confuse new customers due to them being named with GW IP.

If Chapterhouse did not use GW's names, then GW would have been less likely to start this legal action.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Shepherd23 wrote:Either GW already knew that artwork isn't a reasonable medium to prevent copying of an item into a miniature or they should so get sued themselves by WoTC for this little item amongst others...

Released in 1998 and the Tau didn't get here until 2001. Maybe its just me, but I see a slightly more than subtle similarity.

If you are willing to accept the nightstalker/kroot likeness as evidence of "copying" then you will be able to find evidence of "copying" for literally everything ever.

I'd suspect Kroot were more inspired by the "Predator" concept.

Chimaera wrote:

Stuff about the pictures.

If GW do manage to win the case. The ramifications could be much bigger than CHS and have an impact on all other 3rd parties. This I imagine would not be favourable to a lot of poeple out there. If GW lose it could be open season on their product and I do not see how this benefits the players/fans/collectors of the game. It would just make it harder to get product out to those who want it and reduce profits again making things more difficult in a number of ways. While some may relish this thought I do not. Tearing down a great thing because you don't agree with some aspects of how GW release product, their product strategy, market product or are over controlling in some areas are not really solid grounds for damaging a company who produce a great product and yes I do not agree with some of their principles but that doesn't mean I want to see them ground into dust although I do like Dust Tactics

Once the horse has bolted there is no point closing the stable door?

As for most of the pictures, I agree with you. There are superficial similarities between the pics and many GW items, but that does not mean they were copyrighted. The terminator is a good example - a metallic robotic skeleton. Necrons were developed from the tomb king concept (which was derived from the done-to-death concept of undead mummies). But Undead IN SPACE didn't really cut it (like dwarves IN SPACE), so GW turned undead into skeletal robots. Add to that there is nothing protectable about a skeleton... The Space-Marine - Storm-Trooper crossover is again limited to 'they're space troops wearing armour' although I do believe the design of Space Marine helmets from RT-era beakie marines to now was heavily influenced by the Stormtrooper helmet.
I think the message you should take from all those pictures is not, 'look at what GW directly referenced and copied to put into their universe' but 'look at the huge pool of common ideas and concepts that everyone uses all the time in generic sci-fi settings'. Particularly the humanoid battlesuits - GW specifically said they were inspired by a number of anime shows when creating the Tau race, but name concept of 'battlesuit' is so generic that you can't find 1 single robot that Tau were based off. Which is why I find it hilarious that GW sued CHS over the Superheavy Assault Walker: because a) it can fit into any anime/futuristic universe, and b) GW has not produced any models, artwork or stories referencing anything remotely like the walker. The only possible, remote issue I can see with it is that he has painted Tau symbology on it if you look closely enough.


If GW lose, at the moment it looks like this will be because they can't file a proper lawsuit and refuse to disclose what products of theirs they believe have been copied. If they do get their act together and still lose, it will be because they have an unrealistic view of intellectual property law and were overstepping their bounds for the last number of years. We won't see them but shut down and flooded by 3rd party stuff: I'd wager that only about 10% of GW customers know CHS exists, and of them only about 10% would even consider buying something. And as soon as GW brought out a set of XX marine chapter shoulder pads, those sales would completely eclipse CHS sales. I think we're just going to get better service out of the 3rd party industry, whilst GW follows normal business protocol and files 'trademark with intent to use' for products they don't make yet.

Buzzsaw wrote:

plastictrees wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Again, this lawsuit is not about making changes to the website, it is about destroying the moulds and stopping the production.

I know that, but I doubt GW would have paid all that much attention if CHS hadn't named everything the way they had at the beginning. You notice that they're not suing everyone else.

They probably would like to do the others but CHS is their best chance for a start.

Yeah, lets jump to that conclusion for no reason at all. Those bastards, potentially suing all those other companies in our imagination.

Wait, I'm not certain I get which "bastards" you're referring to here, as you seem to be taking umbrage at the idea that GW is profligate with their litigation threats... which would be odd, considering the available evidence that they, you know, are profligate with the threats of litigation.

The evidence we have of them suing companies they haven't sued yet, which is what Treesong is talking about here. That evidence?

ph,

I don't think that the 'poor quality' is a core issue here. I feel that it's just another hook to hang their case on. Also I really think that this 'new customer' thing is a red herring. New customers tend to go to b&m stores for their purchases, I have yet to hear of a new player just buying figures and pieces off the net to start a game/hobby they've never heard of before. To qualify that, I feel that if you are aware of, and have been a wargamer, you are aware that firms like CHS exist and that they are not GW.

As an aside, GW used customer complaints as an issue in their case, did they ever provide examples?

I think that GW were looking for someone to make an example of CHS just made for the easiest target.

Shepherd, I believe the Kroot are named in RT.

Cheers

Andrew

ph34r wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:Wait, I'm not certain I get which "bastards" you're referring to here, as you seem to be taking umbrage at the idea that GW is profligate with their litigation threats... which would be odd, considering the available evidence that they, you know, are profligate with the threats of litigation.

A core part of GW's case is that the lower quality Chapterhouse bits confuse new customers due to them being named with GW IP.

If Chapterhouse did not use GW's names, then GW would have been less likely to start this legal action.

That's... not really related to the question that I was asking. I was making an inquiry based on potential lack of clarity with his pronoun. That lack of clarity being caused by his sentence, as I read it, implying that GW does not make a habit of recklessly asserting themselves against other companies. It is my belief that this is demonstrably incorrect, and that information to that effect is easily available, even in this thread.

To put that another way: GW engages in a pattern of overreach with regards to what IP they actually have.

Kanluwen wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Kroothawk wrote: Let's be realistic: If GW releases a tervigon kit, its sales will make all 3rd party tervigon sales look insignificant. Most people are not aware of 3rd party models. Of the few aware, not all like the models or dare to buy non-sanctioned models ("are they tournament legal?")

In my personal experience, it's normal and expected behavior for corporations and bullies of all stripes to be less concerned with the large piece of pie in their hands then with the forkful of pie someone else managed to get.

It's normal and expected behavior of pretty much every human being.

For an example, look at posts here in threads about X army getting something new. Almost inevitably, there will be a half dozen posts about "how unfair it is that X army gets this, while Y army doesn't".

It's not true, and your analogy is flawed. Games Workshop development is a zero sum game; for every army that gets an update, 12 didn't. There is finite developer time. It's less clear that there are finite wargaming dollars; privateer press doing well does not necessarily mean GWS is doing poorly.

Ouze wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Kroothawk wrote: Let's be realistic: If GW releases a tervigon kit, its sales will make all 3rd party tervigon sales look insignificant. Most people are not aware of 3rd party models. Of the few aware, not all like the models or dare to buy non-sanctioned models ("are they tournament legal?")

In my personal experience, it's normal and expected behavior for corporations and bullies of all stripes to be less concerned with the large piece of pie in their hands then with the forkful of pie someone else managed to get.

It's normal and expected behavior of pretty much every human being.

For an example, look at posts here in threads about X army getting something new. Almost inevitably, there will be a half dozen posts about "how unfair it is that X army gets this, while Y army doesn't".

It's not true, and your analogy is flawed. Games Workshop development is a zero sum game; for every army that gets an update, 12 didn't. There is finite developer time.

I think you misunderstood my analogy.

Developer time is not necessarily the same as the 'common complaints' we hear, such as "why is army X having this model release, when they have not been updated?".
The Nurgle Chaos Lord, for example, was one where I heard a lot of "Bwuhs?" from my local community.

It's less clear that there are finite wargaming dollars; privateer press doing well does not necessarily mean GWS is doing poorly.

Indeed.

Kroothawk wrote:

$pider wrote:

plastictrees wrote:Right, Aragorn Marks. Good for him, finding a steady income as a mini sculptor must be a constant challenge. It will be good to see what he can produce for GW.

Agreed, I liked most of the stuff he did for Privateer Press. Looking forward to see what he produces for GW.

Maybe a non-Oxgore first

See, this is an example how unproblematic and constructive things could work out, if both parties act rationally.
Now imagine for a moment how GW could increase Storm Raven sales by offering the Chapterhouse conversion kit in the next WD.
Or Space Wolves by offering the Wolf Rhino conversion kits.
Or Space marines by featuring an article on all Salamander kits including the Salamander Rhino, Land Raider, Drop Dod, heads, shields and shoulder pads.
Just imagine this for a moment. The universe wouldn't end.

/facepalm

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space_Marine-Infantry-Accessories/SALAMANDERS-SPACE-MARINE-SHOULDER-PADS.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SALAMANDERS-RHINO-DOORS-AND-FRONT-PLATE.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SALAMANDERS-LAND-RAIDER-DOORS.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SALAMANDERS-TERMINATOR-SHOULDER-PADS.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/New_Stuff/SALAMANDERS-ETCHED-BRASS.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/New_Stuff/SALAMANDERS-VENERABLE-DREADNOUGHT-BRAYARTH-ASHMANTLE_BODY.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SALAMANDERS-THUNDERHAWK.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SALAMANDERS-THUNDERHAWK-TRANSPORTER-WITH-LAND-RAIDER__.html


http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SPACE-WOLVES-RHINO-DOORS-AND-FRONT-PLATE.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SPACE-WOLVES-ICONS.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SPACE-WOLVES-LAND-RAIDER-DOORS.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SPACE-WOLVES-TERMINATOR-CONVERSION-SET.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Etched_Brass/ETCHED-BRASS-SPACE-WOLVES-SYMBOLS.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SPACE-WOLVES-VENERABLE-DREADNOUGHT.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SPACE-WOLVES-MKIIB-LAND-RAIDER.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SPACE-WOLVES-THUNDERHAWK.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SPACE-WOLVES-THUNDERHAWK-TRANSPORTER-WITH-RHINOS__.html
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/SPACE-WOLVES-THUNDERHAWK-TRANSPORTER-WITH-LAND-RAIDER____.html


GW makes miniatures. It's their core business. Their subsidiary company, Forge World makes miniature component add-ons (and some miniatures). They have absolutely no interest in licencing Chapterhouse or any other small company to make add-ons, such as shoulder pads or replacement rhino doors, or anything else. People going on about how GW should just publish books are living in a fantasy land with no real idea about what they're talking about. The books are to drive miniature sales.

People thinking that the Chapterhouse suit will force GW to drop prices are also living in fantasy land. Competition in this are is called "Go play Warmachine. Or Warpath." Or use proxies. Scibor make plenty of Not-Space Wolves and Not-Templars. Sure, they cost a ton more than GW models, but there you go. Oh yeah, Warmachine figures cost more per model than GW figures (except in Australia!). There's competition for you...

I can't understand why people think they should licence out their IP so places like Chapterhouse etc can make replacements parts for any of the items that Forge World already make. Particularly with the inconsistent quality levels of many of these companies.

And I say this as someone who has bought quite a number of "aftermarket GW parts" by the current crop of resin makers, as well as previous incarnations of parts and "counts-as" figure producers for the past couple of decades. I also intend to purchase a couple of those Storm Raven conversion kits at some stage.

I think this analogy is best to describe how GW higher management feels and reacts.

GW higher management feels like the Kremlin during Cold War, being surrounded by hostile countries and having a potentially rebellious population. They start by openly attacking one of the most prominent "enemies" with the most brutal weapon they could think of, the US legal system. Their attack failed miserably, publicly showing their weakness. Now in fear of counterattacks, they reacted by enforcing the Iron Curtain, stocking up their military (IP lawyers) and enforcing more censorship and oppression for their own country, letting the Prawda (WD) being the only allowed medium of information. That the coorporation policy is focussed on maximising the profit for the higher management and massively extracting needed corporation resources into their own coffers while neglecting the interests of the development department, the workers and the customers, is only adding to the picture.

History shows that this strategy leads to a process of inner rotting and can only temporarily keep stability of the system. History also shows that if you get over the Cold War mentality, you have the option for a civil society build on cooperation, making it more effective as a side effect.

Hope this analogy is useful to understand the current situation.

Kroothawk wrote:Hope this analogy is useful to understand the current situation.

Maybe you're just trying to be clever, but how does the use of politically loaded terminology clarify anything? All you've done is present a totally subjective and very extreme personal take on something which is going on all around the world in all kinds of areas of business. GW management may have made a mistake, or this may have been a calculated risk, but using Cold War metaphors is unhelpful at best and inflammatory at worst.

Kroothawk wrote:I think this analogy is best to describe how GW higher management feels and reacts.

[one huge exaggeration of a story later]

Hope this analogy is useful to understand the current situation.

Gee, your point sure does make sense and GW sure does sound bad when you describe everything GW does in terms of the cold war.

Just like fething everything else sounds bad when you describe it as being the cold war.

Kroothawk wrote:I think this analogy is best to describe how GW higher management feels and reacts.
(snip)
GW higher management feels like the Kremlin during Cold War, being surrounded by hostile countries and having a potentially rebellious population.
Hope this analogy is useful to understand the current situation.

Sorry, that's a terrible analogy.

Chapterhouse are no more "prominent" than Scibor, Maxmini, et al. They just happened to:
1) Be using GW's product names in their descriptions
2) Get lucky and get Pro Bono representation.

Aside from that, it'd just be the same as their standard C&D operation that they've used against many others in the past.

Buzzsaw wrote:

plastictrees wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Again, this lawsuit is not about making changes to the website, it is about destroying the moulds and stopping the production.

I know that, but I doubt GW would have paid all that much attention if CHS hadn't named everything the way they had at the beginning. You notice that they're not suing everyone else.

They probably would like to do the others but CHS is their best chance for a start.

Yeah, lets jump to that conclusion for no reason at all. Those bastards, potentially suing all those other companies in our imagination.

Wait, I'm not certain I get which "bastards" you're referring to here, as you seem to be taking umbrage at the idea that GW is profligate with their litigation threats... which would be odd, considering the available evidence that they, you know, are profligate with the threats of litigation.

They are pretty free about sending out letters, most people fold when they receive one; Ultraforge got one for the plague daemon, Raging Heroes got one for a Lammasu head (even though it's a generic creature), Hasslefree had one for their slayers and chaos dwarf, and there are a heap of fan sites that have received them. GW don't like other companies making stuff that's compatible with their stuff or even looking like it - they are the strictest of just about any company about purely using only their figures in their games at every opportunity.

I don't think that they like companies like Scibor making swappable parts for Marines. If what is stated in this thread is correct, they won't release their Thunderwolves because other companies are making similar things, even though they apparently haven't got enough to sue them.

CHS used words that GW use, of all targets out there, they are the most prominent one to sue, if GW can't beat them then they have nothing on the others. But I highly doubt that GW 'like' them as seems to be claimed by some, or even as GW claim themselves...

In a free market, anyone willing to invest the necessary time and effort is entitled to the same opportunities we had when we started out. We welcome such fair 'competition' - in fact, we don't even think of it as competition because it all helps to build the hobby.

However, sadly, there are an unscrupulous few who try to take a shortcut to success by copying the design of our games and models and trading on the goodwill we've built up over the years - these people are counterfeiters.

So they like fair competition, but then conflate "copying game design" as counterfeiting. Do they really see CHS as counterfeiters? It would explain a few things. Counterfeiting is recasting, how is that anything like what many companies that have received C&Ds have done.

GW don't like 3rd party companies, they are forced to tolerate them because GW have a grossly inflated idea of their legal rights. I gather Hasslefree told them to get stuffed and they haven't been sued - because the case would be ridiculously tenuous. But GW still thought they could squeeze the little man. Remember, they want to 'build the hobby'.

This is the company that says...

This also means that we cannot allow tattoos as an acceptable use of our IP as a third party necessarily has to perform the "service."

Really?

They also say...

Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement. However, we are certainly not about to stop people making cool conversions of our products, although, there are certain things to keep in mind:

Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.

Seriously??!

That's not "you can't bring conversions into our shop/tournament".

It's "don't convert with other models"

That is total and utter gak.

Now tell me that they are cool with 3rd parties, even those not making using their names for things. They clearly don't but they don't sue because they can't, because it's absurd. They know they are talking crap. So much for "building the hobby". Yeah, building the GW hobby because according to their legal page you can't even convert their figures with other people's models. That is their ideal world, everyone has GW pure armies even if those armies don't leave their own homes.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&multiPageMode=true&start=4

I love the fact that there's a "like" button to click at the top of each 'legal' page though.

I think it would be pretty hilarious if GW could be sued for making models based on their own IP.

It WOULD have the benefit of meaning they have to produce a model for EVERY unit in a codex.

Exactly what i'm hoping will be the result of this. I very mcuh doubt they will go back to a single massive release for each new codex. but all they woudl need to do to prevent this int he futrue woudl be to reveal to the world that a model, even a concept model for a future release, exsists.

Essentially they need to provide previews and marketing for future releases.




This may well be a silly quetion but i dont have my "offical" codex to hand...is it me of have you slashed the points for the vindicator? If memory serves theyare listed at 150 in the GW codex with the same stats that you have listed, although admittedly you have added the siege shield as an option (YAY!!!!, now the rules match my models)

scipio.au wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:I think this analogy is best to describe how GW higher management feels and reacts.
(snip)
GW higher management feels like the Kremlin during Cold War, being surrounded by hostile countries and having a potentially rebellious population.
Hope this analogy is useful to understand the current situation.

Sorry, that's a terrible analogy.

Chapterhouse are no more "prominent" than Scibor, Maxmini, et al. They just happened to:
1) Be using GW's product names in their descriptions
2) Get lucky and get Pro Bono representation.

Aside from that, it'd just be the same as their standard C&D operation that they've used against many others in the past.

To be fair to Chapter House, they got legal advice on the use of trademark names, etc. before they set out their stall.

The weight of legal opinion is that GW cannot legally prevent a company from advertising a part "for use with Space Marines™" as long as the Space Marine trademark is correctly acknowledged by the company using it. Which CH do.

By that measure, CH chose to exercise their reasonable legal rights, and Scibor didn't.

We are 11 months into the case and GW still have not been able to make a clear accusation against Chapter House. This would seem to indicate that GW's legal position actually is weak.

ChocolateGork wrote:I think it would be pretty hilarious if GW could be sued for making models based on their own IP.

It WOULD have the benefit of meaning they have to produce a model for EVERY unit in a codex.

They used to (see HBMCs description of 3rd edition style 'model range dumping'). People still weren't happy then due to the huge tracts of nothing they got for their army between book releases. Then they went to waves for financial reasons, and now people moan that not everything is released at the start with the book.

Old saying of 'You can't please everyone'.

PP's continuous release schedule with 'waves' of updates seems to work quite well.

Not everything has to be monolithic.

-Loki- wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:I think it would be pretty hilarious if GW could be sued for making models based on their own IP.

It WOULD have the benefit of meaning they have to produce a model for EVERY unit in a codex.

They used to (see HBMCs description of 3rd edition style 'model range dumping'). People still weren't happy then due to the huge tracts of nothing they got for their army between book releases. Then they went to waves for financial reasons, and now people moan that not everything is released at the start with the book.

Old saying of 'You can't please everyone'.

No they didnt "use to" when they did huge releases in one lump sum serveral armies STILL didnt get every unit in the book they needed. THATS why they complained. Waves are ok, IF you get everything.

With PP's waves, it may take a bit, but I know that every jack, unit, attachment and caster in the book released WILL be out before the next book. Thats why it works.

However, finding said models in stock can be a bit of a challenge-keeping stuff in stock has always been PP's problem. But at least I can look online at worst.

sourclams wrote:PP's continuous release schedule with 'waves' of updates seems to work quite well.

Not everything has to be monolithic.

Now, some people may argue that Privateer has had a lot of trouble keeping up with that release schedule, but at the same time their release of new products has always been solid. It's been their back catalogue that they've had trouble fulfilling. For instance, I had to wait probably 3 months to find an Ol'Rowdy model for my Cygnar force, for instance, but my local game shop that's actually been stocking new products has had the new stuff in the day it comes out every time.

Now you can do the wave release method and still not release things or fall behind - Wyrd has had a bit of a problem with this, as they haven't been able to get everything from Rising Powers released before dropping Twisting Fates, which I think is probably bad form. But as long as they get them released within a couple years, its still not as bad as GW's idea of a 'good release schedule'.

The problem with what GW is doing is not that they're releasing things in giant waves, but that they literally don't release things at all, despite years going by from the release of the codex to the current date (in some cases). Now if you're one of those who says that the hobby is what is important above all else, that should matter to you, but clearly we've got enough people who want all the models their army is based around that they're willing to go out and buy other products that there is a demand for - and GW has had a pretty big opportunity to release the correct models or kits. That they haven't and someone else has stepped in to fill demand is capitalism at its finest. If you release a keyboard without a 'w' key, and someone starts producing 'w' keys that can be placed on your keyboard to restore functionality... well, that's supply and demand. Same thing here.

I have a second theory to posit for this situation.

What if GW's policy has not changed? Here are some past examples of this behavior:

This is an example of something that they later dropped entirely, but the policy of making some minis "conversion only" for years hasn't changed. I have rules that pre-date the release of Lord Commander Solar Macharius by many years. He wasn't the only special character without a mini to be released in the same edition as the rules- and not by a long shot. But then there were scores of units that didn't make it into mini form until the next edition of the game showed up.

I mean, look at how long it took them to release the plastic Drop Pods? Sure, they were first up with the 5th edition codex, but I know some groups that were using soda cans since the release of the 4th edition marine 'dex.

We didn't see minis for possessed Chaos Space Marines until the 4th ed book- the rules first showed up in the 3rd ed book. And it isn't like they ever released minis to play as Alpha Legion's cultists- or a slew of other special troop types.

I have an older Eldar Codex that has full rules for fielding exodites (things like Cold One riders etc.). It even has drawings of these dinosaur riding Eldar, but there were never any minis released. Many years later, they did release their Bright Lance minis- but it was like a decade later.

I created my own Sentinel mini because the old mini had gone completely out of production, and I didn't feel like proxying it anymore- and it was still several years before GW released their sentinel. They never did create an updated Imperial Guard Land Speeder (yes, I had rules for that for a long time).


My point is that just because GW isn't releasing some given mini doesn't mean that it is Chapterhouse's fault. Or Scibor's, Raging Heroes or anyone else's. Just because something is/would be popular doesn't mean that GW realizes this and is going to release that mini.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement. However, we are certainly not about to stop people making cool conversions of our products, although, there are certain things to keep in mind:

Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.

Seriously??!

I've never really read through all of GW's legal stuff before, this quote is especially silly. Fortunately, it's not actually legally binding.

biccat wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement. However, we are certainly not about to stop people making cool conversions of our products, although, there are certain things to keep in mind:

Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.

Seriously??!

I've never really read through all of GW's legal stuff before, this quote is especially silly. Fortunately, it's not actually legally binding.

Well no of course it isn't, but they say it all the same. I actually went to check the quote about "tattoos" but you could have knocked me over with a feather when I read that.

Really, when they obviously make stuff up it's no wonder that people can claim they don't know where the line should really be drawn.

I’ve got some conversion models which combine chunks from three or four different backgrounds as well as scratch-built parts.

odinsgrandson wrote:I have a second theory to posit for this situation.
What if GW's policy has not changed? Here are some past examples of this behavior:
(...)
My point is that just because GW isn't releasing some given mini doesn't mean that it is Chapterhouse's fault. Or Scibor's, Raging Heroes or anyone else's. Just because something is/would be popular doesn't mean that GW realizes this and is going to release that mini.

Well, we know that GW's policy changed dramatically end of May (the whole secrecy thing etc).
And we are not talking about miniatures never made, but miniatures ready and not released at the expected date due to a late decision).

Trasvi wrote:
As for most of the pictures, I agree with you. There are superficial similarities between the pics and many GW items, but that does not mean they were copyrighted. The terminator is a good example - a metallic robotic skeleton. Necrons were developed from the tomb king concept (which was derived from the done-to-death concept of undead mummies).

Um, no. Necrons first appeared in GW lore years before Tomb Kings did.

Necrons first showed up in White Dwarf 216 which was published in 1998.

Tomb Kings had their first army book in 2002. Prior to this, the closest thing to "tomb kings" that existed were mummies in the Undead Army Book. They had no "concept" before 6th edition WHFB when GW decided to separate Vampires ("wet undead") and Tomb Kings ("dry undead").

Tomb Kings had an army list in White Dwarf for 5th edition in issue #227. That was after Necrons were released for 2nd ed 40K but before their current look.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Tomb Kings had an army list in White Dwarf for 5th edition in issue #227. That was after Necrons were released for 2nd ed 40K but before their current look.

Haha...don't have that issue.

My point stands, though. It's hard to say that Necrons were a space adaptation of Tomb Kings when Necrons existed first.

My money is still on Necrons being a GW adaptation of the Terminator series.

The first Necrons were very Terminator like.

Kilkrazy wrote:

scipio.au wrote:
Chapterhouse are no more "prominent" than Scibor, Maxmini, et al. They just happened to:
1) Be using GW's product names in their descriptions
2) Get lucky and get Pro Bono representation.

Aside from that, it'd just be the same as their standard C&D operation that they've used against many others in the past.

To be fair to Chapter House, they got legal advice on the use of trademark names, etc. before they set out their stall.

The weight of legal opinion is that GW cannot legally prevent a company from advertising a part "for use with Space Marines™" as long as the Space Marine trademark is correctly acknowledged by the company using it. Which CH do.

By that measure, CH chose to exercise their reasonable legal rights, and Scibor didn't.

We are 11 months into the case and GW still have not been able to make a clear accusation against Chapter House. This would seem to indicate that GW's legal position actually is weak.

I'm not arguing any of those points, as they're all valid. Simply that using the GW names as directly as they have done on in their descriptions doesn't make them more "prominent" than others per se. Nor does the fact that they were fortunate enough to find Pro Bono representation make them more prominent than Scibor - although I'm sure the publicity of the case itself has done them wonders in terms of press within our little hobby. The thing is, regardless of whether GW own the copyright to the profile of wolf heads or dragon heads in relief or Maltese Crosses and Roman Numerals, it doesn't mean they're going to "officially licence" Chapterhouse or anyone else when Forgeworld can make things with that iconography for 100% of the $.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

biccat wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement. However, we are certainly not about to stop people making cool conversions of our products, although, there are certain things to keep in mind:

Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.

Seriously??!

I've never really read through all of GW's legal stuff before, this quote is especially silly. Fortunately, it's not actually legally binding.

Well no of course it isn't, but they say it all the same. I actually went to check the quote about "tattoos" but you could have knocked me over with a feather when I read that.
Really, when they obviously make stuff up it's no wonder that people can claim they don't know where the line should really be drawn.

Someone in the other thread mentioned that it was to cover their backsides legally from, say, Lucasfilm/LucasArts if someone were to start selling "Darth Vader Space Marines" on eBay and fo forth. Much like the "official" stance on Tattoos is that they're fine as long as no money exchanges hands, no-one there actually gives a crap, and half of them would think the
Khorne Icon on your shoulder is quite cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:The first Necrons were very Terminator like.

They even had a special rule "I'll be back". Not sure if it's still in their books, as I've never played Necrons.

scipio.au wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:The first Necrons were very Terminator like.

They even had a special rule "I'll be back". Not sure if it's still in their books, as I've never played Necrons.

They go even further back than that... there's a figure that's recognizably a antecedent of the Necrons in Advanced Space Crusade and Space Marine/Titan Legions, that went by the name of "Chaos Android" and of course the first destroyers were quite diffrent from the current robo-scarab centaurs..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:[
They also say...

Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement. However, we are certainly not about to stop people making cool conversions of our products, although, there are certain things to keep in mind:

Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.

There's a bit of truth here, But GW has taken it and turned it up to 11 with their claim. It has do do with not copyright but "moral rights" which are a parrallel section of law preventing an artists's workd from beings modified/destroyed etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29

These laws are taken somewhat more seriously outside of the US, particularly in Europe and much more in regards to fine are - there's a version of it in the US but it's only availble to pieces that are signed,numbered and less than 200 in number.

Lanceradvanced wrote:

scipio.au wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:The first Necrons were very Terminator like.

They even had a special rule "I'll be back". Not sure if it's still in their books, as I've never played Necrons.

They go even further back than that... there's a figure that's recognizably a antecedent of the Necrons in Advanced Space Crusade and Space Marine/Titan Legions, that went by the name of "Chaos Android" and of course the first destroyers were quite diffrent from the current robo-scarab centaurs..

Yep, I had them once upon a time. I'm not sure if I actually ever played my copy of ASC or just used the miniatures for 40k. The Chaos Dreads still stand up pretty decently today.

$pider wrote:I have to say that this does cast a negative light on Chapterhouse if all of this is true. I am not a GW fan by any means, however it is their game, their fluff and Chapterhouse wouldn't be making a dime if GW didn't exist.

Chapterhouse should have played ball, and basically done what others have. No reason to take this where it has gone. Either way I don't see this ending well for anyone.

The opposite side being that if GW weren't such greedy control freak twits with over the top prices, then there wouldn't have been any area for Chapterhouse to have made a dime. So, who isn't playing ball and who is using the bat as a blunt instrument to bully with? Bet, if GW poofed away tonight, 40k would end up healthier than ever, with lower costs to the players, more rational rules, less rules changes to "encourage" the purchase of less well selling models and no more monopoly driven arrogance.

You want an example? It would have been trivial to write a bigger Space Marines Codex and include extra pages to account for the variant chapters. It might have cost a little more, but probably less than one of the variant codices cost by themselves. Oh, some fluff might have been lost, but the fluff doesn't match the tabletop game that well anyway, unless you want to play a game using FFG's Dark Heresy combat system. Or do you really think that mere humans really have not chance to kill a single veteran Space Marine?

scipio.au wrote:

Lanceradvanced wrote:

scipio.au wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:The first Necrons were very Terminator like.

They even had a special rule "I'll be back". Not sure if it's still in their books, as I've never played Necrons.

They go even further back than that... there's a figure that's recognizably a antecedent of the Necrons in Advanced Space Crusade and Space Marine/Titan Legions, that went by the name of "Chaos Android" and of course the first destroyers were quite diffrent from the current robo-scarab centaurs..

Yep, I had them once upon a time. I'm not sure if I actually ever played my copy of ASC or just used the miniatures for 40k. The Chaos Dreads still stand up pretty decently today.

The robots in Space Crusade were Chaos Androids, not Necrons.

-Loki- wrote:

scipio.au wrote:

Lanceradvanced wrote:

scipio.au wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:The first Necrons were very Terminator like.

They even had a special rule "I'll be back". Not sure if it's still in their books, as I've never played Necrons.

They go even further back than that... there's a figure that's recognizably a antecedent of the Necrons in Advanced Space Crusade and Space Marine/Titan Legions, that went by the name of "Chaos Android" and of course the first destroyers were quite diffrent from the current robo-scarab centaurs..

Yep, I had them once upon a time. I'm not sure if I actually ever played my copy of ASC or just used the miniatures for 40k. The Chaos Dreads still stand up pretty decently today.

The robots in Space Crusade were Chaos Androids, not Necrons.

That's what he said.

-Loki- wrote:
The robots in Space Crusade were Chaos Androids, not Necrons.

You do notice the resemblance though?

There's a resemblence, yes, but Chaos Androids actually have a place in the fluff. They weren't Necrons.

-Loki- wrote:There's a resemblence, yes, but Chaos Androids actually have a place in the fluff. They weren't Necrons.

And nobody has said they were Necrons.

Please check out the highlighted portion in my previous post. Lanceradvanced stated that the miniature for the chaos androids was, stylistically, a pre-cursor to the Necron miniatures. Neither he nor anybody else stated that they were Necron miniatures.

I was just thinking.

If a given unit figures in a codex would it not be considered a character in a work of fiction and thereby copyright protected? At least if it figured in fluff text (with anyway most minis do, because they have fluffy entry). Also, would they not be protected if there is a illustration of them in the book, even if there is no model?

Because seeing in this way i could technically get, as an example, the last Song of Ice and Fire book and make a mini of a new character that appears in the given book and them sell the figure using the name of the character without risking a lawsuit and not only that but i would become owner of the concept of the character (at least when speaking about miniature figures) from there on.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Copyright protects the expression of an idea. If you express a character in text, then your text expression is what is protected.

Tabris_ wrote:I was just thinking.
If a given unit figures in a codex would it not be considered a character in a work of fiction and thereby copyright protected? At least if it figured in fluff text (with anyway most minis do, because they have fluffy entry). Also, would they not be protected if there is a illustration of them in the book, even if there is no model?
Because seeing in this way i could technically get, as an example, the last Song of Ice and Fire book and make a mini of a new character that appears in the given book and them sell the figure using the name of the character without risking a lawsuit and not only that but i would become owner of the concept of the character (at least when speaking about miniature figures) from there on.
It just doesn't make sense to me.

The answer is, 'it depends'.
I discusses a few pages back that something in is only protectable if your expression of the concept is separable from the concept itself by way of unique, original elements. This is often a direct function of how much is written about the character. For example, a knight bearing a shield of a golden lion on red is not separable from the concept of a knight, nor is the sigil unique or original. If you create a knight called Jaime Lannister the Kingslayer with a missing hand, regardless of his sigil you're possibly in for trouble.
Then there is the separation of what is unique and protected about your expression, what fits in public domain, and what is inseparable from the concept. Armour is inseparable from a knight or soldier. A clip, trigger, exhaust vents, handle are functional elements of a gun. A Templar Cross is public domain....
Certain elements and characters within GW's text are definitely fleshed out to claim copyright as a character. However, many things are not. I would argue that the description of the Tervigon unit entry is lacking in depth or unique elements to separate the Tervigon from the concept of a alien 'brood mother'. The Doom of Malantai is more unique/characterised, but still not incredibly so. Basically the law is saying 'you don't have any intellectual property rights over the tervigon, because you didn't do anything original to create it'.

Trasvi has hit the nail on the head and pretty much has highlighted the reason why GW is having issues with the current lawsuit. There’s a lot of ambiguity regarding the nature of GW’s intellectual property and given physically the models Chapterhouse has released, GW is having issues clearly defining what has been infringed. It’s kind of hard to prove that Chapterhouse have infringed a concept that in itself contains a lot of unoriginal elements.

scipio.au wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement. However, we are certainly not about to stop people making cool conversions of our products, although, there are certain things to keep in mind:

Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.

Seriously??!

Someone in the other thread mentioned that it was to cover their backsides legally from, say, Lucasfilm/LucasArts if someone were to start selling "Darth Vader Space Marines" on eBay and fo forth. Much like the "official" stance on Tattoos is that they're fine as long as no money exchanges hands, no-one there actually gives a crap, and half of them would think the Khorne Icon on your shoulder is quite cool.

I'm pretty sure they didn't care in years gone by though. There certainly have been themed armies shown in White Dwarf although not recently. And if you look at the original Rogue Trader book (IIRC) they kitbash space marines and daleks to make cyborgs!

Yes Citadel were making the Daleks at the time, but when LOTR comes around there are all sorts of licencing issues over mixing the ranges and tat'll be the film company's requirements - you initially were not supposed to for any official events. I think it's relaxed now. But for a while they were basically saying "you can only use GW figures for conversion, but not those GW figures, you can't use any of that lot even the really cool stuff like the Balrog wings.

GW legal wrote:Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.

Next plans are to sue Michael Moorcock for using the GW Chaos Star in his novels and James Cameron for using the concept of an Alien Queen in his movie
That's why Moorcock has put all upcoming Elric novels on hold

algesan wrote:

$pider wrote:I have to say that this does cast a negative light on Chapterhouse if all of this is true. I am not a GW fan by any means, however it is their game, their fluff and Chapterhouse wouldn't be making a dime if GW didn't exist.

Chapterhouse should have played ball, and basically done what others have. No reason to take this where it has gone. Either way I don't see this ending well for anyone.

The opposite side being that if GW weren't such greedy control freak twits with the top prices, then there wouldn't have been any area for Chapterhouse to have made a dime. So, who isn't playing ball and who is using the bat as a blunt instrument to bully with? Bet, if GW poofed away tonight, 40k would end up healthier than ever, with lower costs to the players, more rational rules, less rules changes to "encourage" the purchase of less well selling models and no more monopoly driven arrogance.

You want an example? It would have been trivial to write a bigger Space Marines Codex and include extra pages to account for the variant chapters. It might have cost a little more, but probably less than one of the variant codices cost by themselves. Oh, some fluff might have been lost, but the fluff doesn't match the tabletop game that well anyway, unless you want to play a game using FFG's Dark Heresy combat system. Or do you really think that mere humans really have not chance to kill a single veteran Space Marine?

Dude for real if GW did went away 40k would die. even though they have become greedy they have given us a great world to play in. And do you really think that the Chapterhouse would keep on making thier stuff for warhammer, no they would start making PP stuff because thats were the money would be at. Hate or love GW

army310 wrote:
Dude for real if GW did went away 40k would die. even though they have become greedy they have given us a great world to play in. And do you really think that the Chapterhouse would keep on making thier stuff for warhammer, no they would start making PP stuff because thats were the money would be at. Hate or love GW

Not true. There's tons of games that people play that have been out of production for years, some even decades. GW is not the hobby and to be honest... it's not even the be all, end all of 40K.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

army310 wrote:
Dude for real if GW did went away 40k would die. even though they have become greedy they have given us a great world to play in. And do you really think that the Chapterhouse would keep on making thier stuff for warhammer, no they would start making PP stuff because thats were the money would be at. Hate or love GW

Not true. There's tons of games that people play that have been out of production for years, some even decades. GW is not the hobby and to be honest... it's not even the be all, end all of 40K.

Seriously. I mean, how long has it been since Chess saw a rules update or a FAQ?

Lots of people still play the specialist games that GW hasn't supported for years.

army310 wrote:

algesan wrote:

$pider wrote:I have to say that this does cast a negative light on Chapterhouse if all of this is true. I am not a GW fan by any means, however it is their game, their fluff and Chapterhouse wouldn't be making a dime if GW didn't exist.

Chapterhouse should have played ball, and basically done what others have. No reason to take this where it has gone. Either way I don't see this ending well for anyone.

The opposite side being that if GW weren't such greedy control freak twits with the top prices, then there wouldn't have been any area for Chapterhouse to have made a dime. So, who isn't playing ball and who is using the bat as a blunt instrument to bully with? Bet, if GW poofed away tonight, 40k would end up healthier than ever, with lower costs to the players, more rational rules, less rules changes to "encourage" the purchase of less well selling models and no more monopoly driven arrogance.

You want an example? It would have been trivial to write a bigger Space Marines Codex and include extra pages to account for the variant chapters. It might have cost a little more, but probably less than one of the variant codices cost by themselves. Oh, some fluff might have been lost, but the fluff doesn't match the tabletop game that well anyway, unless you want to play a game using FFG's Dark Heresy combat system. Or do you really think that mere humans really have not chance to kill a single veteran Space Marine?

Dude for real if GW did went away 40k would die. even though they have become greedy they have given us a great world to play in. And do you really think that the Chapterhouse would keep on making thier stuff for warhammer, no they would start making PP stuff because thats were the money would be at. Hate or love GW

I have to agree with army310.

While GW may be greedy control freaks these are not valid reasons for CHS to step in. There are many similar companies all around the world that are just as greedy or controlling in some peoples eye as GW is for some on here. Ultimately if the game wasn't strong or desirable enough people would not buy it. If people don't like something they can express their opinions with their wallet and freedom of choice. Why is it people still buy 40K? Maybe becuase it's an excellent quality product and like most excellent quality products they come with a price tag.

Maybe GW gave us different Space Marine Codices as it offered choice. I for one do not want a Codex all about other chapters as I wanted the Chapter I bought. Choice over convenience is always going to be a hard one.

If GW pulled out of 40K and nobody could pick up the license. For sure it would die a death. It may be a slow, long and painful one but eventually the collapse of product release would drive the mainstream in to another games arms.

Sure chess is timeless and people play out of print games but without GW 40k would get pushed to the fringe eventually. You only have to look on any 40K forum to see lots of new product/releases is a big driver for many.

Like army310 pointed to. CHS would probably move on to the next cash cow if 40K imploded. There are plenty of examples out there that once a company fails behind a game the product soon loses the focus of the masses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

Chimaera wrote:

Stuff about the pictures.

If GW do manage to win the case. The ramifications could be much bigger than CHS and have an impact on all other 3rd parties. This I imagine would not be favourable to a lot of poeple out there. If GW lose it could be open season on their product and I do not see how this benefits the players/fans/collectors of the game. It would just make it harder to get product out to those who want it and reduce profits again making things more difficult in a number of ways. While some may relish this thought I do not. Tearing down a great thing because you don't agree with some aspects of how GW release product, their product strategy, market product or are over controlling in some areas are not really solid grounds for damaging a company who produce a great product and yes I do not agree with some of their principles but that doesn't mean I want to see them ground into dust although I do like Dust Tactics

Once the horse has bolted there is no point closing the stable door?

As for most of the pictures, I agree with you. There are superficial similarities between the pics and many GW items, but that does not mean they were copyrighted. The terminator is a good example - a metallic robotic skeleton. Necrons were developed from the tomb king concept (which was derived from the done-to-death concept of undead mummies). But Undead IN SPACE didn't really cut it (like dwarves IN SPACE), so GW turned undead into skeletal robots. Add to that there is nothing protectable about a skeleton... The Space-Marine - Storm-Trooper crossover is again limited to 'they're space troops wearing armour' although I do believe the design of Space Marine helmets from RT-era beakie marines to now was heavily influenced by the Stormtrooper helmet.
I think the message you should take from all those pictures is not, 'look at what GW directly referenced and copied to put into their universe' but 'look at the huge pool of common ideas and concepts that everyone uses all the time in generic sci-fi settings'. Particularly the humanoid battlesuits - GW specifically said they were inspired by a number of anime shows when creating the Tau race, but name concept of 'battlesuit' is so generic that you can't find 1 single robot that Tau were based off. Which is why I find it hilarious that GW sued CHS over the Superheavy Assault Walker: because a) it can fit into any anime/futuristic universe, and b) GW has not produced any models, artwork or stories referencing anything remotely like the walker. The only possible, remote issue I can see with it is that he has painted Tau symbology on it if you look closely enough.


If GW lose, at the moment it looks like this will be because they can't file a proper lawsuit and refuse to disclose what products of theirs they believe have been copied. If they do get their act together and still lose, it will be because they have an unrealistic view of intellectual property law and were overstepping their bounds for the last number of years. We won't see them but shut down and flooded by 3rd party stuff: I'd wager that only about 10% of GW customers know CHS exists, and of them only about 10% would even consider buying something. And as soon as GW brought out a set of XX marine chapter shoulder pads, those sales would completely eclipse CHS sales. I think we're just going to get better service out of the 3rd party industry, whilst GW follows normal business protocol and files 'trademark with intent to use' for products they don't make yet.

Your comments are well met but while I accept people draw inspiration from various sources. 40k does have a particular flavour/branding of it's miniatures and universe. If GW started producing minis or parts in the same vein/style of those of Mantic's I would say GW is equally in the wrong. Yes you could argue Mantic's have a generic fantasy feel but they are different to GW's Warhammer minis and it is noticeable to the trained eye.

After being a lifelong fan of Star Wars I feel there is no inspiration drawn from a Stormtrooper helmet. I would wager it more likely came from a motorcycle helmet with the beaky bit from a Knights helm added to the front.

Indeed the percentage may be viewed as small but even 1% is a large amount of money turnover wise for a large corporate. If more third parties came along would that eventualy equal 5% of T/O? This is probably why GW try to keep a tight rein on things and what they are probably worried about. Ultimately any loss income means less they can deliver to their customers, players, fans & collectors.

Trasvi has hit the nail on the head and pretty much has highlighted the reason why GW is having issues with the current lawsuit. There’s a lot of ambiguity regarding the nature of GW’s intellectual property and given physically the models Chapterhouse has released, GW is having issues clearly defining what has been infringed. It’s kind of hard to prove that Chapterhouse have infringed a concept that in itself contains a lot of unoriginal elements.

While maybe not acceptable in law. I think something that has the overwhelming aesthetic of another product it is that product.

Kroothawk wrote:

GW legal wrote:Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.

Next plans are to sue Michael Moorcock for using the GW Chaos Star in his novels and James Cameron for using the concept of an Alien Queen in his movie
That's why Moorcock has put all upcoming Elric novels on hold

You make a good point. Even if this rumor is true, Chapterhouse is still not responsible. Ultimately, those decisions belong to GW, and they're the ones who are holding back the releases with some rather silly reasoning.

Kroothawk wrote:

odinsgrandson wrote:I have a second theory to posit for this situation.
What if GW's policy has not changed? Here are some past examples of this behavior:
(...)
My point is that just because GW isn't releasing some given mini doesn't mean that it is Chapterhouse's fault. Or Scibor's, Raging Heroes or anyone else's. Just because something is/would be popular doesn't mean that GW realizes this and is going to release that mini.

Well, we know that GW's policy changed dramatically end of May (the whole secrecy thing etc).
And we are not talking about miniatures never made, but miniatures ready and not released at the expected date due to a late decision).

That's true- we've seen a few changes to GW policy recently. Do we know for certain that these miniatures were actually finished and ready for release? Do we have photos of the finished minis? Honestly, I haven't been following those closely enough to say.

But the way you're describing it, it was more like the 2nd ed Squad figures (who ended up being a games day release, but GW pulled the plug before finishing the promised codex).

I'm just really used to GW releasing 80-90% of a codex, then just dropping the ball on the rest of the minis- and seemingly completely regardless of how much people want to play the rest.

I mean, I never really did get those skinks cold one riders until they were turned into sauruses. So you can see where I'm coming from.

Chimaera wrote:Why is it people still buy 40K? Maybe becuase it's an excellent quality product and like most excellent quality products they come with a price tag.

WOW. Lots of conjecture here.

People spend money on non-quality things constantly and for a variety of reasons. The world is full of examples of people spending way more money on things than they should without a concern for quality at all.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

Chimaera wrote:Why is it people still buy 40K? Maybe becuase it's an excellent quality product and like most excellent quality products they come with a price tag.

WOW. Lots of conjecture here.

People spend money on non-quality things constantly and for a variety of reasons. The world is full of examples of people spending way more money on things than they should without a concern for quality at all.

Well you tell me why GW product is so popular then. From the comments people leave on this and various other forums you would think it cannot be becuase of their keen price point, marketing strategy, release strategy, exploitation of new markets and their so called corporate greed.

Tabris_ wrote:I was just thinking.

If a given unit figures in a codex would it not be considered a character in a work of fiction and thereby copyright protected? At least if it figured in fluff text (with anyway most minis do, because they have fluffy entry). Also, would they not be protected if there is a illustration of them in the book, even if there is no model?

Because seeing in this way i could technically get, as an example, the last Song of Ice and Fire book and make a mini of a new character that appears in the given book and them sell the figure using the name of the character without risking a lawsuit and not only that but i would become owner of the concept of the character (at least when speaking about miniature figures) from there on.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

To the best of my understanding, copyright is not intended to protect much of anything beyond a specific expression. Essentially the only reason copyright protection extends beyond the exact totality of any given expression is because, throughout the application of copyright law, the Courts have had to deal with a range of questions that don't fall neatly within the limits of the copyright code. For example, it makes sense that a work would not be able to avoid infringement simply because it had "insignificant" differences. But how does one determine what an insignificant difference is? It also makes sense that a copyright holder should not be able to gain de facto control over unprotectible elements, but how does one separate what is protectible from what is not protectible while still considering a work in its entire context?

In terms of character copyrights, the issue is hotly debated to this day and various courts have used a range of methods to determine whether a character should be protectible. But this is the jumping off point: if copyright protection gives the author the exclusive right to create copies of a work, how and why should the copyright code give an author exclusive rights to something beyond the scope of the protected expression, if at all? In other words, can a single expression create more than one copyright? A protected character is a copyright beyond the scope of, and in addition to, the work in which it appears. Thus, for example, the "distinctly delineated" test (one of the methods by which courts determine if a character should be protectible). In brief, the distinctly delineated test determines whether the character is so firmly expressed in the work (or works) that it takes on an existence outside of those works and is remembered long after the specifics of the story are forgotten. There's also the "story being told" test in which the character is virtually synonymous with the story, meaning that use of the character infringes the expression as much as use of the story. Those are rather quick and dirty explanations by the way.

There are Song of Ice and Fire miniatures. I don't know whether they are officially licensed. However, most visual expressions of Gandalf that have been made since the Lord of the Rings works were published were not licensed. Most are also so varied that any rational application of copyright would not consider them to be copies of one another. Do they all infringe a Gandalf character copyright? If you think that's the way it should be, consider all of the artists that worked to create those distinct visual expressions. Should a single copyright give the author the ability to control every single one of those expressions?

You've also brought up the interesting issue of labeling vs titling. If I make a model of Jamie Lanister and sell it as a "Jamie Lanister" model, is that a trademark issue, copyright issue, both, or neither? Don't be so quick with an answer. To be a trademark issue, "Jamie Lanister" would need to be a registered mark, or a mark in use. To be a copyright issue, there would need to be a work that the model could conceivably be a copy of. One would not influence the other, by the way. And if the model was sold under the "Jamie Lanister" mark, that does not mean that the title of the work is "Jamie Lanister." The work may be untitled, or the base may be inscribed with the title "One-handed Knight." If so, with regard to a potential copyright issue, the words "Jamie Lanister" would be totally irrelevant. The only relevant issue would be whether or not the model was a copy of some other previously created work to which the author had access prior to or during the creation of the work.

You've also brought up the question of whether a work in one medium can infringe a work in another. Can a '2 dimensional' drawing be a copy of a sculpture, or vice versa? Maybe, it depends, but why is that? That's an important question. Clearly, a sculpture cannot possibly be a 100% exact copy of a drawing. It is simply physically impossible. One must then turn to "substantial similarity." Does the sculpture unfairly appropriate protected elements of the drawing without any artistically significant difference? If you think that's subjective, it certainly is. Biccat would likely say that a sculpture has been found to infringe a photograph. He would be correct. But in understanding why the judge(s) in that case found the work to infringe provides insight into how some have at one specific time and with one specific set of facts found a sculpture to infringe a photograph. Nevertheless, you would find that "substantial similarity" ultimately came down to fuzzy concepts such as what the works communicated to the viewer; the emotional impact of the works. In other words, the sculpture failed the "smell test," or as one might put it, the Potter Stewart approach was used. A read-through of the written opinion suggests that the Court was attempting to locate some way within the code to find that the sculpture was a copy of the photograph. It really was a shameless copy, there was even direct evidence of copying.

That example really only gives us a way to more emphatically say that a sculpture might infringe a drawing. In the misty nebulous of theory, it is certainly possible. And in one well-published case it actually happened. But I personally think that, even in the realm of theory, a sculpture would virtually have to set out to reproduce a drawing in order to infringe it. Otherwise, one would be hard pressed to establish substantial similarity.

But a sculpture could infringe a copyright without being a copy. It could be a derivative work. It could, for example, recast, transform, or adapt the drawing. However tantalizing it may seem to argue that a sculpture is an adaptation of a drawing, that tantalization only comes from a feeling that changing from one medium to another constitutes an adaptation. Hell, I haven't even mentioned any examples to illustrate the point. I humbly caution that this tantalizing feeling is treacherous and should be mercilessly crushed. Why should it be that something which implicitly makes copying more difficult to establish at the same time makes a finding of infringement easier on a derivative work basis? I don't think it should. One should not turn to derivative works to broaden the scope of a copyright.

You will find, I think, that within a determination of infringement via derivative work lies a remarkably similar calculus to that within a determination of copying. There must still be substantial similarity between the works, and in fact it is likely harder to find that similarity within a derivative work. But just because it is harder to find that similarity should not lead one to look less thoroughly. In other words, one should not think that because a derivative work is a new copyright, and as such there must be differences between the accused work and the allegedly infringed work, that it is acceptable to find infringement based upon less substantial similarity than one would when determining if the accused work was a copy.

In other words, you must find the root work within a derivative work in a recognizable and substantially similar form. A translation, for example, is a transformed version of a written work, but one would not argue that the root work does not exist within the translation in a recognizable and substantially similar form. Indeed, that is the goal of a successful translation. Although the text might be 100% different, what makes the work unique remains in a form that is altered as little as possible. Similarly, one would not argue that an abridgment does not contain substantial and recognizable portions of the root work that are, without a doubt, substantially similar or even wholly the same. Also consider a motion picture adaptation. If a motion picture adaptation did not reproduce the root work in a recognizable and substantially similar form, it would be a poor adaptation.

And yet with a motion picture adaptation you have an example of a change in medium. However, note that what makes the root work unique (the story from which the movie was adapted) is reproduced. If the story were significantly altered, the adaptation would be a failure. Indeed, a motion picture adaptation has much in common with a translation as well as an abridgment. The "language" in which the story is told is different and portions of it may be removed, but the core of the work is recognizable and substantially similar to the root work.

It is inherently fallacious to employ the concept of derivative works in order to argue that a work which bears passing similarity to the allegedly infringed work is infringing; to, in effect, use the concept of derivative works to argue that unprotectible elements somehow become protectible. If it is not sufficient to say that sculpture B is a copy of picture A because both are expressions of concept X, it is also not sufficient to say that sculpture B is derivative of picture A because both are expressions of concept X. In order for sculpture B to be derivative of picture A, the work would have to start with picture A and transform it into sculpture B, and that is determined by locating a significant amount of recognizable and substantially similar elements from picture A within sculpture B. Thus is the calculus virtually the same as that employed when determining if the accused work is a copy.

Saldiven wrote:Seriously. I mean, how long has it been since Chess saw a rules update or a FAQ?

It's a disgrace, I've been waiting hundreds of years for the next 'Codex: Black Pieces'.

If this question has been posed, apologies, I only read about 1/2 the thread.

What is the benefit for GW to release an updated Codex with rules for new monsters / vehicles / etc and then not (ever?) provide the model?

I can think of a few reasons, some approach genuine logic (assuming I can think like a "decision maker" for a multimillion dollar wargaming company) while others are sardonic. I'm interested in getting the opinion of other people.

It's very strange, isn't it?

It is what happens, though.

Skalk Bloodaxe wrote:What is the benefit for GW to release an updated Codex with rules for new monsters / vehicles / etc and then not (ever?) provide the model?

1.) To have a more continuous income for one army and raising new interest several times until the next Codex/armybook release.
2.) To overcome the one release per generation policy of old ("Dad, when will I get new shineys for my army?" "When you are married and have children.")
3.) To have the option to release models when they are ready, not wait 5 years for the next Codex/armybook.
4.) Maybe some units are late additions to a Codex/armybook and the 2 year production cycle for plastic kits starts late.
5.) To increase the urge for conversions and getting deeper involved in the hobby.

These are general reasons, with 1.) being the most important. This approach doesn't work though when the missing units are essential for army lists and most customers are unable to do such demanding conversions as in the case of the tervigon or the farseer council on jetbike.

I think its just because of lack of time to put out every new mini out there... On the nid dex the update with new bugs was immense and they delivered LOTS of new kits, unfortunately the codex list of new bugs was just too huge.

Skalk Bloodaxe wrote:What is the benefit for GW to release an updated Codex with rules for new monsters / vehicles / etc and then not (ever?) provide the model?

According to some strong rumour sources, they were just about to release those models. Saying they won't 'ever' release them is a bit silly. It's a symptom of their wave releasing system (which provides continual sales rather than sales bubbles around codices) and not ever telling anyone what is being worked on. If all they did was release some concept/work in progress shots and kept the player base informed, then this situation wouldn't have happened and the playerbase would be a lot happier.

-Loki- wrote:According to some strong rumour sources, they were just about to release those models. Saying they won't 'ever' release them is a bit silly.

It wasn't a question directed at this specific release, it was a question about decades of business practice. 'Ever' had quotations and a question mark on it for a reason. They *may* eventually get around to it. Like Huron Blackheart. Published in 1996, released in 2007.

Special characters have always been, well, special in this regard. They get released if they will sell.

The vast majority of units, again as said with exceptions to Eldar and Orks which always seem to be missing something, get released, either through GW or FW conversion kits. Wave releasing is new to GW, and they're not good at it, which is why we are seeing gaping holes in 5th edition.

-Loki- wrote:It's a symptom of their wave releasing system (which provides continual sales rather than sales bubbles around codices) and not ever telling anyone what is being worked on. If all they did was release some concept/work in progress shots and kept the player base informed, then this situation wouldn't have happened and the playerbase would be a lot happier.

It's a good idea that they just seem to implement badly. The troughs of their 'wave releases' are so wide that instead of bubbles around codices, they just have bubbles around release waves... if a 3rd party doesn't step in and make the model in the interim.

Even if they did release concept work and spread preview and teaser info like... every other gaming company out there, if it takes literally years between codex and model release, they'll still have the same problems.

Well not really. if they released work in prgress shots, they'd have a defensible position because they've been making the models and the images were available publicly.

Saldiven wrote:

Brother Gyoken wrote:

army310 wrote:
Dude for real if GW did went away 40k would die. even though they have become greedy they have given us a great world to play in. And do you really think that the Chapterhouse would keep on making thier stuff for warhammer, no they would start making PP stuff because thats were the money would be at. Hate or love GW

Not true. There's tons of games that people play that have been out of production for years, some even decades. GW is not the hobby and to be honest... it's not even the be all, end all of 40K.

Seriously. I mean, how long has it been since Chess saw a rules update or a FAQ?

Lots of people still play the specialist games that GW hasn't supported for years.

Warhammer would only go up if GW went away.

If GW went bankrupt for instance a new company would jump on GW IP faster than a fat kid to a Smartie! First of all, at bankruptcy the value of the IP itself would be almost nothing; but the demand based on the current client base would be huge! This would allow another company to slide into a high demand product for nothing. They would be able to develop new models, books, etc. for far less than GW is charging.


If GW decided they want out; which lets face it the chances are 100x greater you'll be caught hog tied to a giraffe on the local high school with a lightning rod stuck out your ass that makes you cough up lil' pink ponies every time it gets struck by lightning. The demand would be apparent to any buyer with the intent to pic it up that they'd still want to push the product to see return as to not feel to strong a drop in sales it being a new owner ((as there is often a drop in sales just because a company has switched owners, stocks take big hits often when things like this happen; even Apple felt it.))


GW is no longer the blood of Warhammer, the IP that is now the blood of Warhammer; and GW knows this, especially now.


The sad part is, either way this case with Chapter House goes, the consumer is going to hurt for it. If GW loses, the product price goes up, and new product gets the freight train brakes turned on full stop. If GW wins, they gloat, prices go up, and start suing every other manufacture regardless of the product as few out there would have the cash flow to be able to fight the lawsuit. Chapter House is only this far because of Pro-Bono lawyers, whom would not step up to any plates on these cases if Chapter House fails here.

I don't think the value of the IP is necessarily that high.

GW still makes 99% of its money from selling models and rules. The licensing for the computer games and novels is icing on the cake, and you need the cake to put it on.

If GW went bust because they could not sell models and rules, it would be a big stretch for anyone to sell licences from the background, without the firm grounding of the wargames.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think the value of the IP is necessarily that high.

GW still makes 99% of its money from selling models and rules. The licensing for the computer games and novels is icing on the cake, and you need the cake to put it on.

If GW went bust because they could not sell models and rules, it would be a big stretch for anyone to sell licences from the background, without the firm grounding of the wargames.

While the IP value may not necessarily be that high at the moment. It is growing.

The computer games and the novels are opening it up further and I am sure FFG wouldn't want to sell 40k & Warhammer games under license if they felt there was no value to them because the IP was weak.

It wouldn't take that much to increase the IP value. A massive film agreement, figures like Star Wars, collectible card deal under Attax license and a LEGO products would probably seal the deal ummmm LEGO Speez Marines. I am sure GW see their IP as growing in value also and this is mainly their reason to defend it. Just because thay haven't exploited the IP fully yet doesn't mean they aren't going to at some stage in the future.

@Chimaera: I actually think that there would be a pretty decent market for, say, 4" or 8" action figures based upon the 40K universe. Something akin to the Star Wars figures from the 1980's.

Granted, getting a good, solid movie out first would help. Dunno if they'll ever do that.

Chimaera wrote:While the IP value may not necessarily be that high at the moment. It is growing.

You're confusing IP with licensing. GW pretty much only sells their IP. When you buy a model you're not buying it because it's a good quality model, you're buying it because of it's creative elements. Ditto for rulebooks, you don't buy them for the paper quality and editing, you buy them because of the intellectual property.

GW's IP is basically the core of the company. Ditto for any other miniature company (Reaper may be an exception).

biccat wrote:

Chimaera wrote:While the IP value may not necessarily be that high at the moment. It is growing.

You're confusing IP with licensing. GW pretty much only sells their IP. When you buy a model you're not buying it because it's a good quality model, you're buying it because of it's creative elements. Ditto for rulebooks, you don't buy them for the paper quality and editing, you buy them because of the intellectual property.

GW's IP is basically the core of the company. Ditto for any other miniature company (Reaper may be an exception).

The way I understand it is they are licensing 3rd parties to use their IP to make product. Same thing in my book. In effect the 40K universe is the IP as GW created it. The IP's value must be based on perceived value when converted into a commercial product.

Saldiven wrote:@Chimaera: I actually think that there would be a pretty decent market for, say, 4" or 8" action figures based upon the 40K universe. Something akin to the Star Wars figures from the 1980's.

Granted, getting a good, solid movie out first would help. Dunno if they'll ever do that.

A very credible mainstream theatrical release would unlock many doors for GW.

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't think the value of the IP is necessarily that high.

GW still makes 99% of its money from selling models and rules. The licensing for the computer games and novels is icing on the cake, and you need the cake to put it on.

If GW went bust because they could not sell models and rules, it would be a big stretch for anyone to sell licences from the background, without the firm grounding of the wargames.

I would dispute that merely at a guess, Im sure we can find out somehow, but the black library alone surely accounts for a huge amount of cash these days?

They have sold gak load of books and audio drama's, It must be in the tens of millions by now surely?

See... you start conjecturing on numbers or even pre-supposing a certain amount of people know about or take part in a specific IP and I start disbelieving. 10 million people are about what a show like the Sopranos normally got for viewership and it was very well known show. I seriously doubt sales from all 40k sources comes anywhere close to a number like that, even from a worldwide market.

biccat wrote:

Chimaera wrote:While the IP value may not necessarily be that high at the moment. It is growing.

You're confusing IP with licensing. GW pretty much only sells their IP. When you buy a model you're not buying it because it's a good quality model, you're buying it because of it's creative elements. Ditto for rulebooks, you don't buy them for the paper quality and editing, you buy them because of the intellectual property.

GW's IP is basically the core of the company. Ditto for any other miniature company (Reaper may be an exception).

Exactly, and IP is only worth its demand. One only has to look at sites like Dakka Dakka and BoLS to reinforce the point of how strong Warhammer itself is; then looking at how many private retailers are carrying IP, and then of course the GW stores and bunkers. A company would jump on Warhammer IP very fast if it became a cheap investment ((ie. if GW went bankrupt.)) but the double edge to that is, for GW to fail it has to loose all that support from the market that makes its IP so valuable now. Best case scenario is, GW runs into the ground with steady losses of NEW customers; and new company picks it up and revamps its gears to bolster new blood for the blood gods...

The idea that gw going bankrupt would be anything but bad for the game is laughable. You think he takes a long time to update codices now? What happens during the "restructuring period," where the new company figures out how to run its new investment? How many armies do you think they would keep, and how many would be discontinued while they consolidated their position?

Pray for a comprehensive change of leadership, sure. Don't pray for bankruptcy. It will only make things worse.

Guildsman wrote:
Pray for a comprehensive change of leadership, sure. Don't pray for bankruptcy. It will only make things worse.

That's not necessarily true, though.

Going bankrupt does not mean a business closes its doors any more than it means an individual suddenly dies after filing bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy allows a business to restructure their debts and obligations, potentially avoiding some, so that they can (hopefully) come out on the other side in a position more able to compete in the marketplace than they were before the filing.

{Not that I expect GW to file bankruptcy; I was merely pointing out that bankruptcy doesn't mean the end of a company. For example, the Six Flags corporation filed bankruptcy over two years ago, and I was at Six Flags Over Georgia three days ago, along with thousands of other customers.}

Oh, I know that bankruptcy wouldn't mean the absolute end of warhammer. But it would get dicey for a while, and I think that there are far less disruptive options out there.

Saldiven wrote:@Chimaera: I actually think that there would be a pretty decent market for, say, 4" or 8" action figures based upon the 40K universe. Something akin to the Star Wars figures from the 1980's.

I think that such figures were planned during the 90s, but were canned because GW did not want to play nice with other companies.

spaceelf wrote:

Saldiven wrote:@Chimaera: I actually think that there would be a pretty decent market for, say, 4" or 8" action figures based upon the 40K universe. Something akin to the Star Wars figures from the 1980's.

I think that such figures were planned during the 90s, but were canned because GW did not want to play nice with other companies.

And the Toy companies don't play nice with anyone.

All this talk of GW bankruptcy makes me really consider some things.

First off- it could happen. No one is too big to fail, not even one of the mainstays of the hobby like TSR.

Now, the Warhammer brands are rather powerful, and it is rather likely that someone would pick up the game and start going on with it. Maybe Wizards of the Coast, maybe Fantasty Flight games, maybe someone else, but it would be picked up.

Now, as to what 40k would look like at that point- well, it is hard to say. The new company might feel like they couldn't change anything about the game without upsetting the fan base, or they may feel quite at home with rebuilding the game from the ground up. Either way, if GW died, 40k would not.


On the other hand, it would be a large blow to the popularity of GW's games. With viable alternatives out there, it is easy to see how a lot of people would just start playing Warmachine/Hordes, Malifaux, Infinity, Dark Age, Wargods, Mercs, Relic Knight etc. Most likely, we would see a huge pick up in the games with the most momentum (currently Warmachine's at the top) and a sizable pick up for many others.


But that's totally off topic here. Let's be honest, there's simply no way that GW is going to feel very much hurt even if they lose the Chapterhouse case really badly.

mikhaila wrote:

spaceelf wrote:

Saldiven wrote:@Chimaera: I actually think that there would be a pretty decent market for, say, 4" or 8" action figures based upon the 40K universe. Something akin to the Star Wars figures from the 1980's.

I think that such figures were planned during the 90s, but were canned because GW did not want to play nice with other companies.

And the Toy companies don't play nice with anyone.

The toy business is quite ruthless, but there are examples of cooperation. Takara let Hasbro bring the Transformers to the states. The big toy companies also do lots of charity work. Hasbro and Mattel both have children's hospitals.

spaceelf wrote:

mikhaila wrote:

spaceelf wrote:

Saldiven wrote:@Chimaera: I actually think that there would be a pretty decent market for, say, 4" or 8" action figures based upon the 40K universe. Something akin to the Star Wars figures from the 1980's.

I think that such figures were planned during the 90s, but were canned because GW did not want to play nice with other companies.

And the Toy companies don't play nice with anyone.

The toy business is quite ruthless, but there are examples of cooperation. Takara let Hasbro bring the Transformers to the states. The big toy companies also do lots of charity work. Hasbro and Mattel both have children's hospitals.

That's called Licensing.