marv335 wrote: I wonder what the community reaction would be if this situation was reversed, if GW was making a model that strongly resembled a small companies artwork?
People would, of course, freak out.
People would mostly ignore it unfortunately...a few months back, GW through FW did somethi g that actually was comparable in many ways.
As far as I can recall, none of the HH artbooks have a jetbike design that looks like the current offering from Forge World...but, it does bare some semblance to something else?
While I wouldnt say that what GW is doing is theft...there are as many things the same with the drawing by the independent artist as this miniature has in common with the GW drawing.
"TSR seemed having a real interest in pursuing lawsuits in the ‘90s. Perhaps the most famous ones were hose against Gary Gygax and GDW about their Dangerous Dimensions (renamed Dangerous Journeys) RPG. Designed by Gary Gygax himself, the game never had much of a chance to stand in the market and Gary Gygax always maintained that TSR lawsuits had the scope to ‘destroy’ him as a possible competitor. When GDW and TSR reached an agreement and the entire DJ stock was moved to the TSR warehouse in 1994, the game de facto completely disappeared. What were, as far as you may recall, TSR’s true reasons for suing GDW and Gary Gygax? Was he right?
JMW: When a company like TSR( or GW) has a valuable concept like AD&D (... or a lizard) needs to protect that concept from those who would use the idea and make their own products. The lawsuit against Gary was a simple matter of Gary using too many of his AD&D ideas in the Dangerous Journeys game. He lost because he was guilty. TSR sent out many warnings about lawsuits because it was necessary to protect the copyright of AD&D. The company didn’t like the expense of such suits, but they liked the idea of losing the rights to the brand name even less. I’m quite proud to say I was often the expert witness in such actions. The company never, ever went after a competitor to hurt or quest for revenge. . ."
-"GW" and "the lizard" are my adds in there.- Grot 6
Commence to freaking out. Yes, they were indeed in the exact same position as they continue to put other people.
As the old saying goes- The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The only thing different in this case though is the names. Which leads me to think they will end up in the same position. I haven't even started digging up the underbelly of the "Endless Quest" books Debacle.
I am super confused by people saying "the pose is identical" when one of them has its hind legs on an apparently vertical wall, apparently stationary, and the other is in motion on a flat, horizontal surface.
Vertrucio wrote: A lot of typical hyperbole from people who are hardly in the position to actually create and use something, and actually defend their work.
Do you want to maybe clarify what you mean by this?
My first statement is as such. I think most of the people, including ones trying to quote legaleze at others, don't actually understand most of it. I know I don't understand all of it. I stand by my statement, yes even if it is quite derogatory.
I do understand that copyright protects against a large majority of derivative works, the main problem isn't getting the protection under law, it's establishing that you have something to be protected in the first place, then exercising that option.
I also think that people overlook the common decency and courtesy aspects of daily life, especially when involved with these kind of incidents of art theft and creative bankruptcy. This isn't just a legal issue here guys, this is one guy taking the hard work of another, and using it for his own profit. Yes, that's right, this sculptor is trying to turn a profit, he's not trying to just give you these little lizards for free. This is why my opinions have been very vehement against this sculptor, he has chosen to eschew common courtesy, and decency, as such he is not deserving of mine.
If GW wasn't involved in any way, and say this was an argument between two artists, one a well respected concept artist, another was an up an coming sculptor. I suspect many people would be more willing to see how utterly derivative the sculpt is on the GW concept art. And as I keep saying, as as many people seem to gloss over as much as they say I gloss over the legal aspects, there are many points of comparison that this legal battle is based on that could have easily been changed if that sculptor had still wanted to create something inspired by GW's art. Things as simple as changing the position of the gun, varying the pose more, changing the positions of the spikes, modifying the lizard head.
If that sculptor had bothered to use a bit more creativity, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, he deliberately chose to do so, and probably in an effort to gain a bit of promotion from using GW's art. And let's just be frank here, there are a whole lot of studios that are based around the cottage industry of making GW-like miniatures as proxies or stand ins, you can't deny that. What makes me respect a lot of those guys more is that they are definitely inspired by GW's work, but most of them take it a step further and make things that still have their own look to them.
Heck, I have spent a lot of time and money creating, and having art created to establish my own scifi works, I know how the process works. I have posted some promotional art for my game, and you bet it worries the heck out of me if someone takes my work and uses it before my own miniatures are out on the market.
If you want me to go through the legalities, I can certainly sit down and go through them. But right now I have better things to do with my time, such as actually creating this artwork. And you know what, maybe there is some kind of legal loophole that would allow this sculptor to get away with copy catting. But us as a community should not be so eager to praise and defend him either way since all you are doing is establishing a creatively bankrupt community.
Not to mention, there are plenty of other, better sculpts from more original artists that you could buy from, and not support someone who doesn't do his pre-production own work.
Vertrucio wrote: This isn't just a legal issue here guys, this is one guy taking the hard work of another, and using it for his own profit. Yes, that's right, this sculptor is trying to turn a profit, he's not trying to just give you these little lizards for free.
Actually - he was. It was a free figure that they were giving away at Salute - it was not being sold, and as far as I know they never intended on selling it.
On the other issue - regarding the right of the worker...GW's employment contract for artists - freelance or otherwise - strips them of all their rights, both legal and moral (and it is moral rights in relation to copyrights...things like getting credit where credit is due). The artist's only expectation is to be paid for the job - then GW punts them to the curb.
While I'm in agreement with you Sean, wasn't the figure only free if you bought 50GBP worth of stuff from him? Isn't that an incentive to buy from him, and give him money, allowing him to gain a profit?
Sean_OBrien wrote: On the other issue - regarding the right of the worker...GW's employment contract for artists - freelance or otherwise - strips them of all their rights, both legal and moral (and it is moral rights in relation to copyrights...things like getting credit where credit is due). The artist's only expectation is to be paid for the job - then GW punts them to the curb.
That’s not all that uncommon though.
I mean, from personal experience, everything I’ve written for FFG belongs to them. I may have written it, but they own it. I don’t really mind as long as I get my name in the credits.
That doesn't mean the figure isn't free - if you opt not to receive the figure you don't get a discount. If they run out if the figure you don't get a discount.
marv335 wrote: I wonder what the community reaction would be if this situation was reversed, if GW was making a model that strongly resembled a small companies artwork?
People would, of course, freak out.
People would mostly ignore it unfortunately...a few months back, GW through FW did somethi g that actually was comparable in many ways.
As far as I can recall, none of the HH artbooks have a jetbike design that looks like the current offering from Forge World...but, it does bare some semblance to something else?
While I wouldnt say that what GW is doing is theft...there are as many things the same with the drawing by the independent artist as this miniature has in common with the GW drawing.
Your second image link doesn't seem to be working on the boards, though copying and pasting the URL does. To be honest, it seems plain as day that the similarities in the second are coincidental in nature. I would be surprised if the FW sculptors had seen that image; I would be outright stunned if the Blight Wheel sculptors hadn't seen GW's loxatl art.
marv335 wrote: I wonder what the community reaction would be if this situation was reversed, if GW was making a model that strongly resembled a small companies artwork?
People would, of course, freak out.
People would mostly ignore it unfortunately...a few months back, GW through FW did somethi g that actually was comparable in many ways.
As far as I can recall, none of the HH artbooks have a jetbike design that looks like the current offering from Forge World...but, it does bare some semblance to something else?
While I wouldnt say that what GW is doing is theft...there are as many things the same with the drawing by the independent artist as this miniature has in common with the GW drawing.
Your second image link doesn't seem to be working on the boards, though copying and pasting the URL does. To be honest, it seems plain as day that the similarities in the second are coincidental in nature. I would be surprised if the FW sculptors had seen that image; I would be outright stunned if the Blight Wheel sculptors hadn't seen GW's loxatl art.
Wy do you believe one more likely than the other? Any sort of prejudice towards GW or FW's moral purity aside?
Alfndrate wrote: While I'm in agreement with you Sean, wasn't the figure only free if you bought 50GBP worth of stuff from him? Isn't that an incentive to buy from him, and give him money, allowing him to gain a profit?
Just Devil's Advocate
Sure - but if you have that discussion with my wife...she will explain much better than I that spending the $500 on a new purse to get the $20 belt for free is free...or something along those lines...
Most of the people who are buying from them, would have probably spent the money anyway. Getting the free figure is more of an elaborate thank you by BW as opposed to an actual enticement to spend money.
Sean_OBrien wrote: On the other issue - regarding the right of the worker...GW's employment contract for artists - freelance or otherwise - strips them of all their rights, both legal and moral (and it is moral rights in relation to copyrights...things like getting credit where credit is due). The artist's only expectation is to be paid for the job - then GW punts them to the curb.
That’s not all that uncommon though.
I mean, from personal experience, everything I’ve written for FFG belongs to them. I may have written it, but they own it. I don’t really mind as long as I get my name in the credits.
Oh, I know - it was really just a kick back to this comment that he made a bit ago (and keeps inferring through the moral arguments he wants to make as opposed to dealing with legal issues:
Vertrucio wrote: People can say it's a grey area, going between mediums and all that BS, but this sculptor stole work from a fellow artist and is passing it off as his own.
The artist no longer has a claim to the work - the work is GW's. Their contract severs all rights, legal and moral...there fore - there is no stealing from a fellow artist as those moral rights have already been assumed by GW. I wasn't actually making a judgment on the practice - it is standard and that is what I did with my programmers and graphic artists and what I still do anytime I contract out a miniature sculpture.
One point of note though, your name in the credits is your "moral right" - GW takes that away, and although they do sometimes attribute things...they do not always attribute things. Your moral right ensures that you are always credited for what you produce (draw, paint, sculpt, write...).
Your second image link doesn't seem to be working on the boards, though copying and pasting the URL does. To be honest, it seems plain as day that the similarities in the second are coincidental in nature. I would be surprised if the FW sculptors had seen that image; I would be outright stunned if the Blight Wheel sculptors hadn't seen GW's loxatl art.
If I had to guess - GW sculptors would have definitely seen the second picture. It has come to define diesel punk as a style for the past 6 years or so and shows up on the vast majority of related sites and searches. Considering what they produce at FW - them not seeing it would be more than stunning to me.
However, the point was that if you read the letter with the claims made by the GW lawyer and then take that and compare the two images I linked to...you can find just as much to draw comparisons to. Just as I do not immediately assume that BW is guilty of breaking any specific law, I also do not assume that FW is guilty of breaking any specific law. You can actually have two nearly identical items that draw on the same references and not violate any copyrights.
The idea which GW did provide, is not protectable. The various features which have been commented on in this thread (from the pose, to the proportions, to the ear/implant...) - all of those are rather generic. It isn't necessarily copyright infringement just because you see something's that are the same. You need to look for the things that are the same and not common. At that point you can make a determination on the nature of the work to a greater degree of clarity - though even then, an actual court case will go much deeper than a simple examination on face value.
Just so you know. Artists being paid for contract work and not retaining copyright is a standard practice in many areas of entertainment media because the artwork created in this case is part of a larger whole. The creator of that larger whole would be under too much of a burden to track every royalty, every license, every single print fee when it came time to expand on that larger whole.
Usually, when this occurs, the artist is paid a higher fee than usual. The better the artist and more complex the image, then even higher the percentage.
I have contracted to many artists and requested a full copyright buyout, and with all of them we've come to an agreed on fee.
Whilst GW's policies can be harsh, you have to realize, every artist that worked for them knew that ahead of time and have been paid accordingly.
This is not to say all such policies are okay, but rather, we do generally know who has worked on GW stuff, and those artists can probably claim them, even if their names aren't in the books. Trust me on this, I've seen worse treatment of artists than GW.
There is no "punting to the curb" here. Someone was paid for their work, and all the rights associated with that work, and a business was the one that paid for it. It just so happens that in this case it was GW, a corporation known for bad business practices.
On the other side of the coin, I've let the artists I've worked with post the concepts for my game in their portfolios and other places online, some of them have gotten awards for them. But they bear my copyright on the images they post. Thus not only get paid for their work, they get to use it to promote themselves, which is rare. I also get a little bit of extra promotion. But, this is coming from myself, I'm not only running a company, but I'm also an artist who understands the plight of other artists.
The reason I do this is because i know I have some measure of copyright protection, just like GW does. And where I can't afford to protect myself, I can at least enlist the community's help in chastising and ostracizing the offending party. But now that I see I can't rely on that, then perhaps I should just start adopting more GW-like policies? Do you see the problem here?
Another thing to remember here is that while Blight Wheel may have given away the figure, it is still being used as self promotion. After all, why do you think any business gives away free stuff at a major gaming convention? He is advertising his miniature company by having something to showcase and give away. While he may have also done so out of the goodness of his heart, I bet you it was also motivated by the need to advertise and promote his business. There is an expectation of getting more orders for his other work, but lashing them and his company alongside a miniature that represents something currently missing from 40k's lineup. It was a deliberate choice to do so, and these are the repercussions.
Blight Wheel should have had to either come up with his own design, or pay the artist for a license. And since the license was no longer the artist's, it was legally bought by GW from the artist, he wouldn't have been able to.
One harsh reality here is that a lot of miniatures in the grey market are copies of concept art that I see in the artist community. The only reason why people are making a stink this time is that it's GW and GW is standing up for itself, as strange as it is to say that.
But where are all the people making a stink and throwing out legal jargon for those uncreative sculptors that make carbon copies of say, an art student's portfolio illustrations? Heck, I suspect that Blight Wheel could have found some art student's illustration and asked him is he could make a limited edition sculpt to be given away for free at a convention, and that student would have agreed provided that his name be attached to the sculpt and giveaway to give himself some promotion. Then, both sides win, Blight Wheels gets a good design without having to come up with their own, and both the artist and BW gets promoted, all without worrying about money changing hands.
As for Space Marines, they were a concept developed over time, by many artists. Again, this is a reason why companies buy out the full rights. Can you imagine the nightmare, and the roadblocks that would pop up if you had to track every display license and reuse license for concept art?
All of the current Space Marines were derived (as a legal term) from the original design. Whether 20 or 200 people added more skulls tom it between then and now do not change the issue of the moral right which HBMC referred to when he said he was happy as long as he was credited.
To the other issues, you seem to want to ignore the "legalese" in favor of a gut feeling you have personalized. You have a concern that your ideas will be stolen by someone, and seem to want some form of consensus that even though using an idea from a different source is legal...it shouldnt be allowed. Those sorts of determinations though go against the core of creative work. Even your own works are inspired heavily by other ideas which are developed over years at the cost of thousands of dollars (heck, my gut said C&C Predator when I first saw your tank design posted here...the character concept made me think of one of the drawings Moebius did for the first alien movie).
You might not even realize all the different sources that you draw upon..and if it were relegated to something less than the "legalese" method of determining what a copy was, then no one would be able tocreate anything.
And as I said, I make no judgement of how GW handles their contracts, however you seemed to make an effort to link it to the artist and not the company. I myself used the same type of contracts for my own employees and when I contract with sculptors for my own use, I have them sign the same type of contract granting me all rights. It isnt unusual...but it isnt an artist stealing from another artist, if it were stealing at all.
Legally, it's not copying from another artist. But as you say, it's still copying, this time from a business.
But let's face it, you hire an artist for his skill and the things he brings to the table in his art. You don't hire someone to be creative and design stuff if you don't like the particular ways he designs things, or the things he's influenced from.
If you copy work from that same art, even if by that time someone else owns it, you're still taking that artist's own kind of creativity. That's the kind of taking I'm talking about. If this sculptor wants that "something" that created the space lizard concept, he should pay the artist.
@Sean: You're kinda making less sense than my first posts did there. It seems you're agreeing with me here, but it doesn't seem you've read my entire posts.
My designs are definitely influenced by other work. But you would be hard pressed to find such specific similarities. I actually know exactly the direct influences for the concept I've shown. The tank, for instance, does bear a resemblance to one from C&C, but strangely enough, the tank design I have was influenced more off the Hammerhead vehicle from Mass Effect 2, but imagining it in a universe where the cost of operating hovering vehicles is a lot more than is presented in other settings.
And that is what I want the sculptor of this lizard to do. Use the influences, but exercise some level of creativity and make it his own work, but inspired by these influences. So, I agree, influences are the core of the creative process, and I'm saying that people should be influenced, but also be creative from those influences.
I've taken a good long look at the concept and the sculpt, both are still on page 1 of this thread. There are so many specific similarities that go beyond the general concept of "reptile, lizard, space mercenary, and guns" that even you would cry foul, I know I would. If he wants to be creatively bankrupt and just copy, being hit with legal troubles is just one of the consequences. Especially when he could have actually sculpted a much better looking space lizard with guns by going off concept.
And that's the core of my issue with people and this thread. They're so quick to jump on the GW hate wagon, they forget that if they want a better miniature game industry with a lot more interesting and fun miniatures, they have to be willing to support companies when they stand up and defend their property, even if it's GW. Then, maybe these sculptors will invest more time in coming up with better or more unique variations from the concepts they've been influenced by.
I think part of the problem with GW is that there are models with appeal to players that they aren't making. The Female Farseer and the Loxacatl are two recent examples.
It doesn't serve the users one jot to prevent other companies from supplying that market if GW aren't.
And that's the core of my issue with people and this thread. They're so quick to jump on the GW hate wagon, they forget that if they want a better miniature game industry with a lot more interesting and fun miniatures, they have to be willing to support companies when they stand up and defend their property, even if it's GW. Then, maybe these sculptors will invest more time in coming up with better or more unique variations from the concepts they've been influenced by.
For some time GW have been in the position of being able to release complete kits and add ons that would effectively deter most 3rd party bits and figure manufacturers. GW are in the position of being able to release more "interesting and fun miniatures". For whatever reason GW refuse to do this. (anyone seen an official plastic Nid pod?
At the same time GW are reacting to perceived threats from the 3rd party market in a pretty gak handed way whilst not even having an idea of what they actually own or have rights to produce (The CHS case has been showing this).
Vertrucio wrote: Legally, it's not copying from another artist. But as you say, it's still copying, this time from a business.
But let's face it, you hire an artist for his skill and the things he brings to the table in his art. You don't hire someone to be creative and design stuff if you don't like the particular ways he designs things, or the things he's influenced from.
If you copy work from that same art, even if by that time someone else owns it, you're still taking that artist's own kind of creativity. That's the kind of taking I'm talking about. If this sculptor wants that "something" that created the space lizard concept, he should pay the artist.
@Sean: You're kinda making less sense than my first posts did there. It seems you're agreeing with me here, but it doesn't seem you've read my entire posts.
My designs are definitely influenced by other work. But you would be hard pressed to find such specific similarities. I actually know exactly the direct influences for the concept I've shown. The tank, for instance, does bear a resemblance to one from C&C, but strangely enough, the tank design I have was influenced more off the Hammerhead vehicle from Mass Effect 2, but imagining it in a universe where the cost of operating hovering vehicles is a lot more than is presented in other settings.
And that is what I want the sculptor of this lizard to do. Use the influences, but exercise some level of creativity and make it his own work, but inspired by these influences. So, I agree, influences are the core of the creative process, and I'm saying that people should be influenced, but also be creative from those influences.
I've taken a good long look at the concept and the sculpt, both are still on page 1 of this thread. There are so many specific similarities that go beyond the general concept of "reptile, lizard, space mercenary, and guns" that even you would cry foul, I know I would. If he wants to be creatively bankrupt and just copy, being hit with legal troubles is just one of the consequences. Especially when he could have actually sculpted a much better looking space lizard with guns by going off concept.
And that's the core of my issue with people and this thread. They're so quick to jump on the GW hate wagon, they forget that if they want a better miniature game industry with a lot more interesting and fun miniatures, they have to be willing to support companies when they stand up and defend their property, even if it's GW. Then, maybe these sculptors will invest more time in coming up with better or more unique variations from the concepts they've been influenced by.
Your continual attempts to mischaracterise everyone who disagrees with your opinion as a mindless GW-hater is getting almost as old as your continually shifting goalposts whenever someone points out that your emotional appeals about "stealing from artists" doesn't apply.
Some of us looked at the same images you did and came to a different conclusion; there are no more similarities between the art and this model than there are between the Alien xenomorph aesthetic and the Tyranids, and many of the similarities that do exist are so inherent to quadrupedal lizards that they would necessarily exist in any such depiction.
You keep blathering on about creativity, but for an artist you have a shocking lack of understanding regarding the creative process, to the point that you'll sit there and defend your own designs that are every bit as derivative(in the non-legal sense of the word). For example, you'll have to explain how on earth your tank is supposed to be a massively creative reimagining of the Hammerhead(a vehicle which hovers, has a large aerodynamic tail section housing a fan engine, protruding fan-like engines at the sides, and a fixed weapon mount rather than a turret), when has already been pointed out it looks rather more like someone took a C&C3 Mammoth Tank and fiddled with the geometries a bit.
Now, I'm sure you put a lot more effort into the design than that, but that wouldn't change the fact that they're similar enough to make your design every bit as vulnerable as the BWM miniature if you accept GW's legal reasoning, and even if you don't, every bit as vulnerable to criticism under your own stated definitions of "creative bankruptcy".
Vertrucio wrote: Legally, it's not copying from another artist. But as you say, it's still copying, this time from a business.
But let's face it, you hire an artist for his skill and the things he brings to the table in his art. You don't hire someone to be creative and design stuff if you don't like the particular ways he designs things, or the things he's influenced from.
If you copy work from that same art, even if by that time someone else owns it, you're still taking that artist's own kind of creativity. That's the kind of taking I'm talking about. If this sculptor wants that "something" that created the space lizard concept, he should pay the artist.
@Sean: You're kinda making less sense than my first posts did there. It seems you're agreeing with me here, but it doesn't seem you've read my entire posts.
My designs are definitely influenced by other work. But you would be hard pressed to find such specific similarities. I actually know exactly the direct influences for the concept I've shown. The tank, for instance, does bear a resemblance to one from C&C, but strangely enough, the tank design I have was influenced more off the Hammerhead vehicle from Mass Effect 2, but imagining it in a universe where the cost of operating hovering vehicles is a lot more than is presented in other settings.
And that is what I want the sculptor of this lizard to do. Use the influences, but exercise some level of creativity and make it his own work, but inspired by these influences. So, I agree, influences are the core of the creative process, and I'm saying that people should be influenced, but also be creative from those influences.
I've taken a good long look at the concept and the sculpt, both are still on page 1 of this thread. There are so many specific similarities that go beyond the general concept of "reptile, lizard, space mercenary, and guns" that even you would cry foul, I know I would. If he wants to be creatively bankrupt and just copy, being hit with legal troubles is just one of the consequences. Especially when he could have actually sculpted a much better looking space lizard with guns by going off concept.
And that's the core of my issue with people and this thread. They're so quick to jump on the GW hate wagon, they forget that if they want a better miniature game industry with a lot more interesting and fun miniatures, they have to be willing to support companies when they stand up and defend their property, even if it's GW. Then, maybe these sculptors will invest more time in coming up with better or more unique variations from the concepts they've been influenced by.
Your continual attempts to mischaracterise everyone who disagrees with your opinion as a mindless GW-hater is getting almost as old as your continually shifting goalposts whenever someone points out that your emotional appeals about "stealing from artists" doesn't apply.
Some of us looked at the same images you did and came to a different conclusion; there are no more similarities between the art and this model than there are between the Alien xenomorph aesthetic and the Tyranids, and many of the similarities that do exist are so inherent to quadrupedal lizards that they would necessarily exist in any such depiction.
You keep blathering on about creativity, but for an artist you have a shocking lack of understanding regarding the creative process, to the point that you'll sit there and defend your own designs that are every bit as derivative(in the non-legal sense of the word). For example, you'll have to explain how on earth your tank is supposed to be a massively creative reimagining of the Hammerhead(a vehicle which hovers, has a large aerodynamic tail section housing a fan engine, protruding fan-like engines at the sides, and a fixed weapon mount rather than a turret), when has already been pointed out it looks rather more like someone took a C&C3 Mammoth Tank and fiddled with the geometries a bit.
Now, I'm sure you put a lot more effort into the design than that, but that wouldn't change the fact that they're similar enough to make your design every bit as vulnerable as the BWM miniature if you accept GW's legal reasoning, and even if you don't, every bit as vulnerable to criticism under your own stated definitions of "creative bankruptcy".
That is all there is to say. But I'm sure he'll come up with another way to shift the goalposts.
Vertrucio wrote: And that's the core of my issue with people and this thread. They're so quick to jump on the GW hate wagon, they forget that if they want a better miniature game industry with a lot more interesting and fun miniatures, they have to be willing to support companies when they stand up and defend their property, even if it's GW. Then, maybe these sculptors will invest more time in coming up with better or more unique variations from the concepts they've been influenced by.
When GW actually produces minis for things instead of trying to "lock down" an idea by publishing a picture (even a not so clear one like the Tervigon) I'll support them more.
Hell, the Chapterhouse Tervigon wasn't even that much like the book picture and it earned GWs "wrath".
Everybody calmed down? Well, assuming you are, we can continue.
From what I can tell, the mini is almost exactly the same as GW's artwork. The producers may have used similar inspirations as GW, and just came up with the same design by accident, but afaikGW has the right to defend it's IP, and what seems to be its IP.
GW has absolutely no right to defend what 'seems to be' its IP, it can defend its IP, but at this moment in time, it is unclear whether this miniature infringes on that sufficiently from a legal standpoint, especially when, as you mention, it draws on many natural features of a lizard, which are in no way protectable under law.
As you cannot protect the idea of a lizard with a gun, only the specific details of YOUR lizard with a gun, and the majority of the non lizard features are different (sufficiently different is another argument) then it really does boil down to GW throwing their weight around for no real gain.
We don't even know for a fact that this is GW's IP to defend. They've failed in the past to actually own the license for artwork (ref. Chapterhouse case) and have mailed artists after the fact saying "We know you signed this over to us before but we lost the paperwork, can you sign this again please?"
If they had always been honest in their persecution in the past I'd look on this much more favorably for them.
I think part of the problem with GW is that there are models with appeal to players that they aren't making. The Female Farseer and the Loxacatl are two recent examples.
It doesn't serve the users one jot to prevent other companies from supplying that market if GW aren't.
I imagine they think that if they don't stamp on everything and become a bit more permissive, then they worry where it will end. How far will others go in making things that are filling gaps in their range, and when people really start making stuff they intend to do. I don't believe for a moment they were planning to make this lizard though, the drawing has say in a book for years untouched.
They probably operate under the belief that if they don't offer a female farseer then players will be compelled to buy their male version instead. If someone else sells a female figure it directly has taken a sale away. Of course, there must be people whose alternative to buying the female farseer was simply not to buy a miniature at all. But their attitude in the CH case is like music companies, every download or sale elsewhere translates directly into a sale they've been denied. But it just doesn't work like that in reality, a lot of the time people don't want what you're offering and even if you had complete exclusivity you still wouldn't get those sales.
I think part of the problem with GW is that there are models with appeal to players that they aren't making. The Female Farseer and the Loxacatl are two recent examples.
It doesn't serve the users one jot to prevent other companies from supplying that market if GW aren't.
Who is to say that the appeal is to GW's playerbase alone though?
A great example of this is Corvus Belli's "Infinity" line and the controversial "Catgirl" Daktari model. She is supposedly the top selling model, of all time, from their Infinity ranges.
Yet you don't actually see her on the table too much...especially now that there's an actual alternative that doesn't look so furry.
So where are all the sales going? Who is buying the model if she isn't showing up in Nomad lists with any kind of regularity? If she was so appealing of a model, why is she getting replaced by a successor model?
I think GWS is correct to send a C&D in this situation - they are very, very similar to each other, and I think GW's very specific implementation of a komodo dragon with a gun was clearly and unambiguously present in the Blight Wheel model.
Sure would be awesome if they made the model themselves instead of being IP trolls about it though. But that's their prerogative.
I think part of the problem with GW is that there are models with appeal to players that they aren't making. The Female Farseer and the Loxacatl are two recent examples.
It doesn't serve the users one jot to prevent other companies from supplying that market if GW aren't.
Who is to say that the appeal is to GW's playerbase alone though?
A great example of this is Corvus Belli's "Infinity" line and the controversial "Catgirl" Daktari model. She is supposedly the top selling model, of all time, from their Infinity ranges.
Yet you don't actually see her on the table too much...especially now that there's an actual alternative that doesn't look so furry.
So where are all the sales going? Who is buying the model if she isn't showing up in Nomad lists with any kind of regularity? If she was so appealing of a model, why is she getting replaced by a successor model?
Your line of reasoning is not clear to me.
1. The Loxacatl is a limited edition give-away, not a regular line.
2. Corvus Belli's production planning would seem to have nothing to do with this copyright claim by GW.
azreal13 wrote: GW has absolutely no right to defend what 'seems to be' its IP, it can defend its IP, but at this moment in time, it is unclear whether this miniature infringes on that sufficiently from a legal standpoint, especially when, as you mention, it draws on many natural features of a lizard, which are in no way protectable under law.
As you cannot protect the idea of a lizard with a gun, only the specific details of YOUR lizard with a gun, and the majority of the non lizard features are different (sufficiently different is another argument) then it really does boil down to GW throwing their weight around for no real gain.
I agree. GW has nothing to gain here. This reeks of GW's legal team trying to justify their existence by sniffing out anything that MIGHT be actionable. Note that GW wouldn't dare bring this lawsuit up against Disney or anyone with more money to throw at it. GW threatens small companies in order to quash possible competition. It's a common tactic in corporations sadly.
I understand GW wanting to protect their IP, but as it stands GW would only have copyright on the design, and copyright isn't lost if you don't protect it like trademarks are. GW has no competing product, and has suffered no loss here. They are not legally obligated to take action, and doing so is just really a waste of money.
This is all effort that GW COULD be putting into one of their actual lawsuits where they claim some actual manner of loss.
azreal13 wrote: GW has absolutely no right to defend what 'seems to be' its IP, it can defend its IP, but at this moment in time, it is unclear whether this miniature infringes on that sufficiently from a legal standpoint, especially when, as you mention, it draws on many natural features of a lizard, which are in no way protectable under law.
As you cannot protect the idea of a lizard with a gun, only the specific details of YOUR lizard with a gun, and the majority of the non lizard features are different (sufficiently different is another argument) then it really does boil down to GW throwing their weight around for no real gain.
I agree. GW has nothing to gain here. This reeks of GW's legal team trying to justify their existence by sniffing out anything that MIGHT be actionable. Note that GW wouldn't dare bring this lawsuit up against Disney or anyone with more money to throw at it. GW threatens small companies in order to quash possible competition. It's a common tactic in corporations sadly.
I understand GW wanting to protect their IP, but as it stands GW would only have copyright on the design, and copyright isn't lost if you don't protect it like trademarks are. GW has no competing product, and has suffered no loss here. They are not legally obligated to take action, and doing so is just really a waste of money.
This is all effort that GW COULD be putting into one of their actual lawsuits where they claim some actual manner of loss.
Rather than GW legal trying to justify their existence do GW feel compelled to act in such a way to appease investors or to show potential investors they are getting their house in order regarding their works?
The CHS case looks to have been running away from GW, Something that won't have gone unnoticed by people who have cash invested or by individuals and groups who want to invest ion a company with a strong and protect able IP?
Did GW feel like they had to act against Blight Wheel out of fear that another party may have noticed another GW vision being violated?
Could GW expand their licencing model to physical product? a Licencee will want to know that their rights are unassailable.
azreal13 wrote: GW has absolutely no right to defend what 'seems to be' its IP, it can defend its IP, but at this moment in time, it is unclear whether this miniature infringes on that sufficiently from a legal standpoint, especially when, as you mention, it draws on many natural features of a lizard, which are in no way protectable under law.
As you cannot protect the idea of a lizard with a gun, only the specific details of YOUR lizard with a gun, and the majority of the non lizard features are different (sufficiently different is another argument) then it really does boil down to GW throwing their weight around for no real gain.
I agree. GW has nothing to gain here. This reeks of GW's legal team trying to justify their existence by sniffing out anything that MIGHT be actionable. Note that GW wouldn't dare bring this lawsuit up against Disney or anyone with more money to throw at it. GW threatens small companies in order to quash possible competition. It's a common tactic in corporations sadly.
I understand GW wanting to protect their IP, but as it stands GW would only have copyright on the design, and copyright isn't lost if you don't protect it like trademarks are. GW has no competing product, and has suffered no loss here. They are not legally obligated to take action, and doing so is just really a waste of money.
This is all effort that GW COULD be putting into one of their actual lawsuits where they claim some actual manner of loss.
Rather than GW legal trying to justify their existence do GW feel compelled to act in such a way to appease investors or to show potential investors they are getting their house in order regarding their works?
The CHS case looks to have been running away from GW, Something that won't have gone unnoticed by people who have cash invested or by individuals and groups who want to invest ion a company with a strong and protect able IP?
Did GW feel like they had to act against Blight Wheel out of fear that another party may have noticed another GW vision being violated?
Could GW expand their licencing model to physical product? a Licencee will want to know that their rights are unassailable.
How is frivolous use of C&Ds appealing to investors? Look at it this way: GW spams C&Ds like the internet spams viagra emails, then when a company actually bothers standing up to them GW ends up caught with their pants down and scrambles to gain footing..
Had GW NOT been out spamming C&Ds perhaps they wouldn't be in the legal mess they are in now where they stand to lose quite a bit. That to an investor is likely more important than going after some garage company for that model they made that looks like a drawing GW did in an obscure OOP book years ago.
Hell, I worked with a company that sent out loads of the damned things. Protecting their assets and their market was important for their business.
I think Aerethan was referring to their previous track record, not this specific instance. I think GWS does have an established track record of sending out frivolous C&D's - I feel OK with categorizing them as frivolous as they have generally backed down immediately when challenged on them ("Spots").
I don't think this one is, though.
There is a big difference between enforcing your marks, and being Monster Cables. I think GWS tends a great deal towards the latter.
Hell, I worked with a company that sent out loads of the damned things. Protecting their assets and their market was important for their business.
GW think they are in the right. CHS caught them out, or has it? Until the case ends we don't know gak.
I didn't say the CHS suit was frivolous. I am not saying the BWM C&D is frivolous. GW does have a history of throwing them around even when they have zero legal legs to stand on, and because those small operations cannot afford to argue their legal rights the end up folding. THAT is frivolous and is an abuse of the system.
GW sued CHS thinking they would have backed down by now as so many other companies have, and currently GW stands to lose far more than CHS does from it.
In this specific case, the ONLY issue is potential copyright infringement, and GW has no legal obligation to pursue action for that. GW doesn't lose any copyright if someone makes the damn lizard and GW doesn't sue them for it.
GW gains nothing but tarnished reputation for moves like this, and reputation matters a great deal to investors as well. No one wants to invest in a company that is widely regarded as a tyrant to it's consumers as that reputation has a serious risk attached to it.
With GW's rep as it is, any company with enough money behind it could come in with a new game, allow model crossover with their ruleset or some other method of converting those customers, and completely destroy GW based mostly on the fact that consumers in general would love a different company if only the product was right.
From an investors standpoint, GW isn't worthwhile unless a takeover is why you're buying. GW takes out loans to pay dividends and shows falling volume of sales hand over fist. Selling less at higher margins only goes so far, because eventually less becomes zero.
Hell, I worked with a company that sent out loads of the damned things. Protecting their assets and their market was important for their business.
GW think they are in the right. CHS caught them out, or has it? Until the case ends we don't know gak.
That is not quite true. GW has lost a considerable number of claims already. GW lost all trademark dilution claims when the Court found that GW could not demonstrate that its trademarks are famous. GW lost its claims against the CHS website for lack of evidence. And more than 40 claims of copyright infringement against CHS have been dismissed with prejudice. The Court has found no liability on the part of the Defendant, and all remaining issues survive as fact issues for the jury. GW has already lost a considerable amount while CHS has lost nothing, not even legal fees.
GW's attorney was sanctioned by the Court, meaning GW must pay CHS expenses. GW has also paid CHS expenses incurred in pushing back the trial date. GW has also provoked an expert report by one of the preeminent authorities on UK copyright law opining that all of GW's miniatures are likely toys, and therefore not subject to copyright protection. GW has provoked an expert report that likens its asserted iconography to the iconography of socialist and neo-Nazi radical organizations in the post WWII period. GW has provoked an expert report that compares its asserted artwork to a font of pre-existing science fiction artwork. And, of course, for the bulk of GW's claims, the questions of ownership and validity will be before the jury, meaning GW may lose every trademark and piece of artwork it has asserted against CHS other than the basic design of the shoulder pad, and that decision by the Court seems to be a rather ripe appellate issue.
For all of this GW has probably invested hundreds of thousands of dollars through years in which its revenue had remained static, the company has borrowed money to pay dividends, and is remaining revenue neutral party because of expanding the licensing of its alleged intellectual property, which of course it risks losing in a very public jury trial in which Alan Merrett, Jes Goodwin, John Blanche, Andrew Jones, Bob Naismith, and even GW in house counsel Gillian Stevenson will probably be on the witness stand.
I'm no business wiz, but to me it seems that thus far GW has paid a substantial amount of money to harm its business and stands to pay a great deal more to potentially cause substantially more harm.
To add to weeble1000's post, one of the more extraordinary findings that has come out of the Chapter House case is how fundamentally unsound GW's IP business practices have been over the decades, in the sense of simply not securing clear legal title to the copyright of pieces they claim.
Kilkrazy wrote: To add to weeble1000's post, one of the more extraordinary findings that has come out of the Chapter House case is how fundamentally unsound GW's IP business practices have been over the decades, in the sense of simply not securing clear legal title to the copyright of pieces they claim.
And that fact alone may prompt future C&D targets to do some digging and see how well they may fare in court before folding up shop.
And that goes back to my first comment in this thread. Does GW even own the rights to the picture in question? The CHS case has shown that they sue over items they don't even own.
If this did go to trial, given the CHS case, could BWM say to the judge "GW needs to show they own the rights" can the judge demand such proof before allowing the case to continue?
I know that CHS did that, and yet the judge is letting certain things remain in the case(at this point for his own amusement I'm sure). How can one sue for infringement if they cannot prove ownership?
Kilkrazy wrote: To add to weeble1000's post, one of the more extraordinary findings that has come out of the Chapter House case is how fundamentally unsound GW's IP business practices have been over the decades, in the sense of simply not securing clear legal title to the copyright of pieces they claim.
And that fact alone may prompt future C&D targets to do some digging and see how well they may fare in court before folding up shop.
And that goes back to my first comment in this thread. Does GW even own the rights to the picture in question? The CHS case has shown that they sue over items they don't even own.
If this did go to trial, given the CHS case, could BWM say to the judge "GW needs to show they own the rights" can the judge demand such proof before allowing the case to continue?
I know that CHS did that, and yet the judge is letting certain things remain in the case(at this point for his own amusement I'm sure). How can one sue for infringement if they cannot prove ownership?
Ownership is a threshold issue and is required as part of a prima facie case of copyright infringement. The Court in the CHS case essentially said (and this is condensing many disparate arguments and facts) that GW's word is good enough to make a claim, and that a jury will have to make the final decision. Note that the Court did find that GW owns some works via interpretations of UK copyright law. I forgot to mention that in my previous posts. What those works are, I cannot remember off the top of my head, but it was only a fraction of the claims.
Notably, many of the copyright infringement claims that GW sought to withdraw, and which were subsequently dismissed with prejudice by the Court, had to do with claims regarding which CHS had raised ownership questions. For example, Chapterhouse's Mantis pads are on that list, and the author of the asserted work was, wait for it, Gary Chalk! That would be the artist who denied ever signing over the rights in question to GW, and the guy who GW had been communicating with whilst denying the company possessed his contact information. Stay classy Mr. Moskin!
I can believe that GW would fail to understand the power of an internet search, but perhaps Mr. Moskin should have given his client better advice, especially considering that Defense counsel has represented Google...in cases involving internet searches...
Kilkrazy wrote: To add to weeble1000's post, one of the more extraordinary findings that has come out of the Chapter House case is how fundamentally unsound GW's IP business practices have been over the decades, in the sense of simply not securing clear legal title to the copyright of pieces they claim.
And that fact alone may prompt future C&D targets to do some digging and see how well they may fare in court before folding up shop.
And that goes back to my first comment in this thread. Does GW even own the rights to the picture in question? The CHS case has shown that they sue over items they don't even own.
If this did go to trial, given the CHS case, could BWM say to the judge "GW needs to show they own the rights" can the judge demand such proof before allowing the case to continue?
I know that CHS did that, and yet the judge is letting certain things remain in the case(at this point for his own amusement I'm sure). How can one sue for infringement if they cannot prove ownership?
Ownership is a threshold issue and is required as part of a prima facie case of copyright infringement. The Court in the CHS case essentially said (and this is condensing many disparate arguments and facts) that GW's word is good enough to make a claim, and that a jury will have to make the final decision. Note that the Court did find that GW owns some works via interpretations of UK copyright law. I forgot to mention that in my previous posts. What those works are, I cannot remember off the top of my head, but it was only a fraction of the claims.
Notably, many of the copyright infringement claims that GW sought to withdraw, and which were subsequently dismissed with prejudice by the Court, had to do with claims regarding which CHS had raised ownership questions. For example, Chapterhouse's Mantis pads are on that list, and the author of the asserted work was, wait for it, Gary Chalk! That would be the artist who denied ever signing over the rights in question to GW, and the guy who GW had been communicating with whilst denying the company possessed his contact information. Stay classy Mr. Moskin!
So the court says that "GW's word" is tantamount to actual proof of ownership? Or will these facts be brought before the jury and explained "GW says they own X, GW has not in the 2.5 years this has been going on shown that they actually do".
Would the judge not dismiss those claims there on the spot if GW cannot show any actual proof at the time of trial?
It's actually not unreasonable to expect that a multimillion dollar international public company that has been in existence for several decades in the IP business, would have proper records and proofs of entitlement to its IP, and therefore take them on trust at the beginning.
That is why the revelations of GW's incompetence in this area have been so shocking.
Good points. It's no longer a reasonable article of faith that GW even owns what they claim to, even if it clearly appeared in one of their properties.
First thing to remember is that the Chapterhouse situation, if you want to talk legally, is a different situation entirely. Especially so if part of that case hinges on misfiling or losing paperwork.
However, there still are similarities, but it's not enough to just dismiss GW's case in this particular instance either way. All it really means is that whenever GW brings up legalities, the lawyers, not us, should make sure to make GW produce the paperwork.
I think part of the problem with GW is that there are models with appeal to players that they aren't making. The Female Farseer and the Loxacatl are two recent examples.
It doesn't serve the users one jot to prevent other companies from supplying that market if GW aren't.
I think it does serve the community if it forces third party sculptor to either pay artists, or come up with better looking designs on their own to use as stand ins for those models. Let's face it, that space lizard design is old as heck and not even that good. The sculpt of it is okay, but again, not that good of a sculpt. There are some really good not-Eldar out there where the designers went beyond into something that GW could never do, that's where you'll find the farseer.
Your continual attempts to mischaracterise everyone who disagrees with your opinion as a mindless GW-hater is getting almost as old as your continually shifting goalposts whenever someone points out that your emotional appeals about "stealing from artists" doesn't apply.
Some of us looked at the same images you did and came to a different conclusion; there are no more similarities between the art and this model than there are between the Alien xenomorph aesthetic and the Tyranids, and many of the similarities that do exist are so inherent to quadrupedal lizards that they would necessarily exist in any such depiction.
You keep blathering on about creativity, but for an artist you have a shocking lack of understanding regarding the creative process, to the point that you'll sit there and defend your own designs that are every bit as derivative(in the non-legal sense of the word). For example, you'll have to explain how on earth your tank is supposed to be a massively creative reimagining of the Hammerhead(a vehicle which hovers, has a large aerodynamic tail section housing a fan engine, protruding fan-like engines at the sides, and a fixed weapon mount rather than a turret), when has already been pointed out it looks rather more like someone took a C&C3 Mammoth Tank and fiddled with the geometries a bit.
Now, I'm sure you put a lot more effort into the design than that, but that wouldn't change the fact that they're similar enough to make your design every bit as vulnerable as the BWM miniature if you accept GW's legal reasoning, and even if you don't, every bit as vulnerable to criticism under your own stated definitions of "creative bankruptcy".
Wow, then you are blind then, because there are a helluva lot of similarities. Which is also why I think you're trying to bring up some really poor criticism of the art for my game. Go and look, again. This time, do it with your mind cleared from the want for GW to not. Count the specific similarities such as proportions and planes of the head.
Also, ignore, for a moment, whether or not GW dotted its I and Ts with its legal documents, and assume they were on the ball with their paperwork as to the rights to this design, because that is a separate issue.
I honestly don't have to explain that much about the artwork for my tank if you're failing to fully read by posts, or actually look at the imagery. Have a little bit of creativity in your mind. The main similarities between my Sphinx tank and the Mammoth is the quad track system and the fact that it is a tank. But the entirety of the model, including lines, the smooth panel work, weapon systems, suspension system, and more, are influenced more from the Hammerhead's look than the Mammoth. Sure, there's some Mammoth in there, no one who has played games since the 80s and 90s can avoid being influenced by it when designing a tank with a quad track setup. But, following through with my argument. The artist I worked with, and my own design contributions have both turned something that was obviously influenced by both tanks, into something of its own thing. And, unlike the space lizard concept from GW, and Blight Wheel's copycat sculpt, you would be hard pressed to find such specific similarities everywhere across the design.
And I'm confused about what you're actually trying to argue about my artwork in the first place? I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that the creative process is all about copycatting, but then trying to berate me about using influences? As others have posted, there's a big difference between copying, and using influences. Perhaps you should look that up.
Which is also why tell you: There are no moving goalposts, why don't you actually state what posts I moved if you're going to try some first grade level logical fallacies. Perhaps you are the one not reading properly into what I've been posting. I mean, why not stick on the issue at hand instead of attacking me and my art if you want to get all into fallacies. Ad hominem much? I'm sure we can both go browse the wikipedia article and pick through that laundry list of fallacies to try to look smarter. Because me continuing my prior argument about why stealing from artists does still apply seems to be me still aiming for the same post, don't you think?
Admittedly, I did also say people do hate on GW too much, so I'm guilty of ad hominem just as much. But go ahead and try to call me a liar about that, on these forums. Try it. Funny thing is, I also dislike GW a great deal, but I can be mature enough to see when they have a point.
Anyway, @Grimtuff: I'm not sure Sheldon Cooper is the best video to be quoting to try to "burn" me from that other poster. After all, he's known for being, well, utterly wrong about quite a few things and oblivious to the obvious. Has a certain sense of irony about you posting that.
Edit: There is another issue should bring up that matters, which is Independent Parallel Discovery/Creation. The situation that comes when two people or groups, working independently from each other come up with practically the same idea, seemingly independent of each other. It's a real thing, and it happens quite a lot, and with the internet people are finding more and more cases of it. You can't have a such a large population of people and not have people coming up with the same stuff. However, there are just too many factors that indicate that this sculpt was not a product of independent and parallel thought.
Vertrucio wrote: First thing to remember is that the Chapterhouse situation, if you want to talk legally, is a different situation entirely. Especially so if part of that case hinges on misfiling or losing paperwork.
However, there still are similarities, but it's not enough to just dismiss GW's case in this particular instance either way. All it really means is that whenever GW brings up legalities, the lawyers, not us, should make sure to make GW produce the paperwork.
Absolutely. Before vilifying either side, you should verify the legality of the claim.
Oh, wait - who's been vilifying the "little guy"?
Also, ignore, for a moment, whether or not GW dotted its I and Ts with its legal documents, and assume they were on the ball with their paperwork as to the rights to this design, because that is a separate issue.
Also, ignore, for a moment, whether or not GW dotted its I and Ts with its legal documents, and assume they were on the ball with their paperwork as to the rights to this design, because that is a separate issue.
Why should we assume GW are on the ball with any paperwork? They've shown in the CHS case that they don't always own what they claim to, so the seed of doubt carries over to ANY claim they make from that point on about the legitimacy of their claim on the art rights.
Furthermore, "ignore whether or not GW dotted its I's and T's with legal documents"? Are you serious? In the transfer of copyright, those documents are all that matter. It doesn't mean a damn thing if GW published a picture of art. If they don't own the art, they can't sue for any infringement of it.
Unless you are insisting that GW as a corporate entity created the artwork and as such is the inherent copyright owner of said work, then legal documentation of the transfer of the rights to that work are the only basis for GW claiming the work as its own.
Before any of this potential lawsuit can move forward, ownership of copyright needs to be established. I can't go around suing people for making bootleg Disney swag, on account of I don't own the rights to any of that crap.
Furthermore(and this point matters a ton here) is that these items under UK law are toys, and as such are only entitled to design rights which expire rather rapidly, just ask Lucasfilm.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's actually not unreasonable to expect that a multimillion dollar international public company that has been in existence for several decades in the IP business, would have proper records and proofs of entitlement to its IP, and therefore take them on trust at the beginning.
That is why the revelations of GW's incompetence in this area have been so shocking.
Been avoiding this thread for the most part, but wanted to chime in that no, it is not that is not unheard of. The best example of this came out in the late 90's when Marvel was in a lawsuit with Marv Wolfman over the character Blade. A successful movie based on the character had just come out and Wolfman sued Marvel claiming he had created the character under a work-for-hire contract and he had not agreed to transfer the character to Marvel. During the trial is was revealed Marvel could not find any contracts or agreements with any contractors from 1979 to the early 80's. Wolfman created the character in 1979. Marvel was only able to win the lawsuit by switching tactics and demonstrate that the movie character was sufficiently different from the original character Wolfman wrote that he couldn't claim ownership on the movie character.
Have dug through enough shipping containers searching for documents to find stuff to know that pre-digital paper tracking can be a nightmare. Worst, the document you need has become some rats bedding.
What is going on at GW right now is likely what went on at Marvel after the revelation from that lawsuit. Things were cleaned up, contractors strong armed to sign paperwork, and questions of ownership put to rest. The whole superhero movie craze was just starting and Marvel didn't want it to die because suddenly studios would not be certain the movies they were backing were actually owned by Marvel. If the rumors of GW being for sale are true, I'm pretty sure they want to make whoever might buy the company doesn't have to worry about IP questions.
Whether they own the original art or not is likely being clarified.
On topic, regardless of GW being in the right or not to sue, my question is why did the artist make the fig off a piece of GW art? Even if it isn't an exact copy, it definitely is close enough that I don't think most people won't disagree that the artist was "inspired" by the art. There are too many similarities for it to be coincidence. It isn't a secret GW is sue happy regarding this stuff and making such a fig only strikes me as trying to poke the bear. Even if he was giving it away, it still strikes me as asking for trouble.
OK, this will be the last post, since I'm completely uninterested in dealing with your obvious "wot, me guv?" faux incredulity.
You talk about "the proportions, the planes of the head", well sorry bub, those would fall under "characteristics of a lizard", in particular the Komodo(huh, it's almost as if BWM called their miniature a "Komodo Warrior" for a reason....). So putting those aside; the bandolier is generic, the lizard characteristics are generic, the pose is completely different(position of the legs is not the same, BWM mini is on a horizontal plane while the Loxatl artwork is aligned vertically grasping a wall with its rear limbs), and lots of minor details like the number of toes, number of protrusions on the tail and so forth are different. The ONLY actual point of similarity which is of any relevance is the weapon itself, which has similar geometries to the artwork and is mounted on the belly, however even that is questionably an issue since A; the weapon is fairly generic in appearance and B; where else are you going to mount a weapon on a quadrupedal lizard other than around the torso - sticking out of its backside? It could be argued quite easily that the similarities in the weapon are a mixture of coincidence and necessity to the concept.
You ask me to single out a post in which you moved goalposts, but I'm afraid I can't do that, because you've done it in every one since your first. You insisted it was legal copying, then after that notion was dismissed by more knowledgeable people, you insisted it didn't matter if there was a legal issue since it was morally wrong to "steal" from the artist. It was pointed out to you that nobody was stealing from any artists, since the work was done on commission for GW, is owned(ostensibly) by GW, and the artist was paid in full for their work long ago. Then all of a sudden it didn't matter if the artist got paid or not, because now BWM's miniature had become some kind of affront to the very notion of "art" and "creativity".
You ask me why I bring up your art. Well, it was an apparently futile attempt to make you recognise the rampant hypocrisy and hubris you display by pretending you and you alone are capable of acting as arbiter of what is "inspiration" and what is "creative bankruptcy".
weeble1000 wrote: GW's attorney was sanctioned by the Court, meaning GW must pay CHS expenses. GW has also paid CHS expenses incurred in pushing back the trial date. GW has also provoked an expert report by one of the preeminent authorities on UK copyright law opining that all of GW's miniatures are likely toys, and therefore not subject to copyright protection. GW has provoked an expert report that likens its asserted iconography to the iconography of socialist and neo-Nazi radical organizations in the post WWII period. GW has provoked an expert report that compares its asserted artwork to a font of pre-existing science fiction artwork. And, of course, for the bulk of GW's claims, the questions of ownership and validity will be before the jury, meaning GW may lose every trademark and piece of artwork it has asserted against CHS other than the basic design of the shoulder pad, and that decision by the Court seems to be a rather ripe appellate issue.
Geez, I thought I was following the CH thread closely but I've missed most of this stuff. How did 'expert reports' get summoned up? That actually occurs in the pre-trial process?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vertrucio wrote: Wow, then you are blind then, because there are a helluva lot of similarities. Which is also why I think you're trying to bring up some really poor criticism of the art for my game. Go and look, again. This time, do it with your mind cleared from the want for GW to not. Count the specific similarities such as proportions and planes of the head.
It is a lizard with a different pose, different anatomy, and in a different medium. They look similar because they are both quadripedal lizards. They are obviously different lizards because they have different numbers of toes, posture, and dimensions. Anybody who tries to claim they're exactly the same is ignoring all the ways they are not exactly the same and trying to claim that GW has ownership of 'Lizards' in all media. If we really, really want to get into the nitty gritty, then the sculpt lacking the dewclaws of the GW Loxatl is actually a very significant omission to the 'functionality' of the alien race, as that is basically the tool they've evolved to travel across vertical surfaces. Lacking that, the 'sculpt' version must then live a dramatically different lifestyle, ground-bound, like a modern Komodo and less like the super-Gecko that the Loxatl seems to represent behaviorally.
The only possible sticking point is whether having an underslung bandolier gun makes them similar enough... and honestly after following the CH thread I don't think that's sufficient in and of itself given that GW's is a drawing and BWM's is a sculpture.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "summoned up," but the defense has retained the services of 4 different experts, all of whom have written expert reports which you can find on the public docket, and all of whom have been deposed.
The plaintiff has one expert who is not testifying at trial, so three of the defense experts are unrebutted.
It works like this:
During discovery, if you want to have a qualified expert opine on an issue the merits the opinion of an expert, you retain the services of a qualified expert. Said expert drafts an initial report laying out his or her expert opinion. Opposing counsel then has an opportunity to both depose the expert and to put forward its own expert to rebut the opinion of the opposing expert. Rebuttal experts go through the same process of report followed by deposition. Experts may then testify at trial.
Fact witnesses can only testify to facts. They cannot give their opinions about an issue in which they are not a qualified expert. Mr. Merrett, for example, is a fact witness, and cannot opine about a topic in which one would need to have proper qualifications in order to have a meaningful opinion.
The defense has an expert in military history with a specialty in badges and insignia if I recall correctly, who has been a curator of military history for almost 20 years.
The defense has an expert in science fiction literature who I believe is a professor at a college in Chicago.
The defense also has an expert on medieval, sci-fi, and pop culture, who seems to study the development of tropes. He is a professor at a college in New York.
All three of these experts have been deposed by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has designated no rebuttal experts.
The plaintiff designated an expert on UK employment law, who I believe they paid something like $700/hour. Whoops! No, it was 750 POUNDS per hour, plus VAT! That is...$1,145/hour! Holy crap! I forgot how much GW paid that guy. And there was another guy on the report being paid $380/hour. Yea, that is absurd, and I work on billion dollar patent cases on a regular basis. $1,000+/hour for an expert, even in a multi-billion dollar big pharma lawsuit is pushing it. Bloch (750/hour guy) was deposed and the transcript runs to 196 pages. That was probably 10K just for Bloch's time in depo, not including attorney's fees, time for preparation, travel, etc. And of course not considering how much that report must have cost GW. Yowzers!
Link for truth Exhibit 8, page ID 3929 "I am being compensated at £750 plus VAT per hour."
The defense brought in an expert to rebut the opinion of the plaintiff's expert, and that is where you get the toys-are-not-copyrightable-under-UK-law opinion. In other words, that expert opinion, which is now in the public record, was absolutely provoked by GW.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "summoned up," but the defense has retained the services of 4 different experts, all of whom have written expert reports which you can find on the public docket, and all of whom have been deposed.
The plaintiff has one expert who is not testifying at trial, so three of the defense experts are unrebutted.
It works like this:
During discovery, if you want to have a qualified expert opine on an issue the merits the opinion of an expert, you retain the services of a qualified expert. Said expert drafts an initial report laying out his or her expert opinion. Opposing counsel then has an opportunity to both depose the expert and to put forward its own expert to rebut the opinion of the opposing expert. Rebuttal experts go through the same process of report followed by deposition. Experts may then testify at trial.
Fact witnesses can only testify to facts. They cannot give their opinions about an issue in which they are not a qualified expert. Mr. Merrett, for example, is a fact witness, and cannot opine about a topic in which one would need to have proper qualifications in order to have a meaningful opinion.
The defense has an expert in military history with a specialty in badges and insignia if I recall correctly, who has been a curator of military history for almost 20 years.
The defense has an expert in science fiction literature who I believe is a professor at a college in Chicago.
The defense also has an expert on medieval, sci-fi, and pop culture, who seems to study the development of tropes. He is a professor at a college in New York.
All three of these experts have been deposed by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has designated no rebuttal experts.
The plaintiff designated an expert on UK employment law, who I believe they paid something like $700/hour. Whoops! No, it was 750 POUNDS per hour, plus VAT! That is...$1,145/hour! Holy crap! I forgot how much GW paid that guy. And there was another guy on the report being paid $380/hour. Yea, that is absurd, and I work on billion dollar patent cases on a regular basis. $1,000+/hour for an expert, even in a multi-billion dollar big pharma lawsuit is pushing it. Bloch (750/hour guy) was deposed and the transcript runs to 196 pages. That was probably 10K just for Bloch's time in depo, not including attorney's fees, time for preparation, travel, etc. And of course not considering how much that report must have cost GW. Yowzers!
Link for truth Exhibit 8, page ID 3929
"I am being compensated at £750 plus VAT per hour."
The defense brought in an expert to rebut the opinion of the plaintiff's expert, and that is where you get the toys-are-not-copyrightable-under-UK-law opinion. In other words, that expert opinion, which is now in the public record, was absolutely provoked by GW.
Coincidentally "Bloch" is a character in the Swords of the Emperor" books.
So GW shot themselves in the foot here, and then didn't bother to defend against 3 expert opinions. Lovely.
That is a matter of opinion, and it depends on how you choose to look at it.
Remember that the Court did choose to use US law over UK law, so GW won that point. GW also won on ownership of several works, though it is in the neighborhood of a dozen or something. that is why these experts are not being called to testify at trial. The relevant issues have been decided by the Court, and decided in GW's favor for the most part.
However, GW DID seek to withdraw a bunch of claims that involved questions of ownership, and the Court dismissed those with prejudice, so one could say that GW lost the ownership question on those claims.
At the end of the day, GW spent a ton on that report and got some good out of it. GW also provoked a report by a very significant authority on UK copyright law opining that its miniatures are not protected by copyright under a High Court decision. That is pretty serious stuff, and regardless of what Judge Kennelly decided to do with it, it hangs over GW's head like a Sword of Damocles.
Imagine what would happen if GW filed the same sort of suit against a UK company, or even an EU company. Not only is that report already out there, bought and paid for, but that expert is also still in the UK, probably maintains a similar opinion, and has already done all of the hard work. Hell, maybe Blight Wheel's lawyer should give him a call.
Admittedly, this hourly wage is also used to cover the salaries of any staff the lawyer retains, pay rent/utilities/misc. expenses for offices, and any other expenses. Also, of course, downtime. Lawyers are paid well, likely overpaid, but not as much as it often seems.
Admittedly, this hourly wage is also used to cover the salaries of any staff the lawyer retains, pay rent/utilities/misc. expenses for offices, and any other expenses. Also, of course, downtime. Lawyers are paid well, likely overpaid, but not as much as it often seems.
Most expert witnesses are professors or other professionals and do not employ staff in that manner. All their day to day expenses are covered, any research gets done by graduate students if it goes beyond their own time. The expert witness fees are for the most part gravy on top of their regular job...pay for that trip to Tahiti on their Christmas Holiday.
Wow, then you are blind then, because there are a helluva lot of similarities. Which is also why I think you're trying to bring up some really poor criticism of the art for my game. Go and look, again. This time, do it with your mind cleared from the want for GW to not. Count the specific similarities such as proportions and planes of the head.
As I have said more than once - you should actually do the same before you start throwing around terms like creative bankruptcy...though it goes well beyond just yourself as others have not looked with a critical eye either it would assume.
When you actually examine the two images that I know of of the GW Loxatl and then compare those two images to the Blight Wheel miniature...a lot of things become apparent.
1) The Head. The head on the GW drawing is flat and wide - like a frogs head. It is attached directly to the body absent of any definition like a neck. You can see this quite clearly in the area near the corner of the mouth on the drawing and where the shoulder of the armor/vest comes across. Assuming the creature is symmetrical (as the detail drawing would seem to indicate) then it is reasonable to conclude the shape of the head when viewed from above is much wider than when viewed from the side. The BW head is roughly square when viewed from the front and has a skull shape more like a lizard, in particular a komodo dragon. The BW head is also offset from the body by a short neck. Ears are in similar locations for each, roughly in line with the corner of the mouth, which also coincides with the placement of the external ear on real world lizards and frogs. Both feature an exposed set of teeth, which is quite common on fantasy, sci-fi and other toothed miniatures and drawings. Both the drawing and the miniature feature barbels, though the ones on the drawing are rather long while the BW barbels are shorter, comparable to what you find on a Southern two-lined salamander.
2) The Front Hands. The GW drawing features 4 or 5 (depending on which hand) fingers and a dew claw. The BW miniature features 3 fingers and a thumb. The proportions of the BW figures front appendage are much closer to being a hand, while the GW drawing is much more foot like - lacking a properly structured opposable thumb (what would be the thumb looks like a short toe ending in a rather large claw...and not the dew claw).
3) The Rear Feet. The GW drawing features 5 toes and a spur. The foot is rather long and shaped very much like you might find on a fast moving terrestrial lizard like a basilisk or collared lizard. The BW foot features 4 toes and a spur. The BW foot is shaped much more like slower moving lizards and crocodilians. The toes and overall foot are short and create a roughly round footprint. The spur which is present on the drawing and the miniature is a common feature in prehistoric reptiles and an uncommon mutation on modern crocodilians (roughly one in one thousand).
4) The Tail. Leaving length aside for a moment (will be addressed below), the GW tale is flattened - as you find on aquatic salamanders like the axolotl or newts like Eastern newt. You can see this quite clearly when the tail curves back against itself. The BW miniatures tail is rounded and tapered to a thick tip. There is a ridge present on the top of the tail, but no "fin" area as you see starting behind the tail spurs on the GW drawing (set off by a reddish brown line). Both the drawing and the miniature feature tail spurs (which, if earth biology applies...would indicate that this is a male).
5) General Proportions. Using the available materials, measure each feature and set the body as equal to "1". Use those measurements to determine relative proportions in order to make an apples to apples comparison between the two figures...and you get something like this for the GW drawing:
GW Tail 2.42
GW Arm 0.84
GW Head 0.49
GW Body 1.00
GW Leg 1.15
GW Neck 0.00
GW Hand 0.61
GW Foot 1.08
And something like this for the BW miniature:
BW Tail 1.55
BW Arm 0.86
BW Head 0.47
BW Body 1.00
BW Leg 1.34
BW Neck 0.09
BW Hand 0.28
BW Foot 0.51
Looking at those numbers, the GW drawing tail is significantly longer than the BW miniature. The front arms/legs of the two are comparable - but the back legs of the BW miniature are longer...almost inline for something that could be a bipedal creature as well. Both heads are comparable in length, but as addressed early the actual shape is significantly different. The GW drawing is completely lacking a neck of any kind. The GW drawings hands are over twice as long as the BW miniatures hands, as are the feet.
So...the pose...really not so much a like, but still a common pose to find lizards in.
The bandoleer...nothing new there.
The chest gun...a somewhat unique idea, but simply an idea what GW can not copyright. The actual implementation of that idea is different on the BW miniature when compared to the GW drawing. The barrel on the BW miniature is shorter, it is a larger caliber and it doesn't have as many of the other tubes around it - whatever their purpose might be meant to represent. On the side of the gun which is visible on the GW drawing - you have 4 different tubes around the barrel of the gun. On the whole of the BW miniature you have three tubes which are spaced roughly equidistant around the barrel.
Under close inspection, there are many significant differences between the two works in question. Generally speaking, there are many more differences than there are things which are the same.
Wow, then you are blind then, because there are a helluva lot of similarities. Which is also why I think you're trying to bring up some really poor criticism of the art for my game. Go and look, again. This time, do it with your mind cleared from the want for GW to not. Count the specific similarities such as proportions and planes of the head.
As I have said more than once - you should actually do the same before you start throwing around terms like creative bankruptcy...though it goes well beyond just yourself as others have not looked with a critical eye either it would assume.
When you actually examine the two images that I know of of the GW Loxatl and then compare those two images to the Blight Wheel miniature...a lot of things become apparent.
1) The Head. The head on the GW drawing is flat and wide - like a frogs head. It is attached directly to the body absent of any definition like a neck. You can see this quite clearly in the area near the corner of the mouth on the drawing and where the shoulder of the armor/vest comes across. Assuming the creature is symmetrical (as the detail drawing would seem to indicate) then it is reasonable to conclude the shape of the head when viewed from above is much wider than when viewed from the side. The BW head is roughly square when viewed from the front and has a skull shape more like a lizard, in particular a komodo dragon. The BW head is also offset from the body by a short neck. Ears are in similar locations for each, roughly in line with the corner of the mouth, which also coincides with the placement of the external ear on real world lizards and frogs. Both feature an exposed set of teeth, which is quite common on fantasy, sci-fi and other toothed miniatures and drawings. Both the drawing and the miniature feature barbels, though the ones on the drawing are rather long while the BW barbels are shorter, comparable to what you find on a Southern two-lined salamander.
2) The Front Hands. The GW drawing features 4 or 5 (depending on which hand) fingers and a dew claw. The BW miniature features 3 fingers and a thumb. The proportions of the BW figures front appendage are much closer to being a hand, while the GW drawing is much more foot like - lacking a properly structured opposable thumb (what would be the thumb looks like a short toe ending in a rather large claw...and not the dew claw).
3) The Rear Feet. The GW drawing features 5 toes and a spur. The foot is rather long and shaped very much like you might find on a fast moving terrestrial lizard like a basilisk or collared lizard. The BW foot features 4 toes and a spur. The BW foot is shaped much more like slower moving lizards and crocodilians. The toes and overall foot are short and create a roughly round footprint. The spur which is present on the drawing and the miniature is a common feature in prehistoric reptiles and an uncommon mutation on modern crocodilians (roughly one in one thousand).
4) The Tail. Leaving length aside for a moment (will be addressed below), the GW tale is flattened - as you find on aquatic salamanders like the axolotl or newts like Eastern newt. You can see this quite clearly when the tail curves back against itself. The BW miniatures tail is rounded and tapered to a thick tip. There is a ridge present on the top of the tail, but no "fin" area as you see starting behind the tail spurs on the GW drawing (set off by a reddish brown line). Both the drawing and the miniature feature tail spurs (which, if earth biology applies...would indicate that this is a male).
5) General Proportions. Using the available materials, measure each feature and set the body as equal to "1". Use those measurements to determine relative proportions in order to make an apples to apples comparison between the two figures...and you get something like this for the GW drawing:
GW Tail 2.42
GW Arm 0.84
GW Head 0.49
GW Body 1.00
GW Leg 1.15
GW Neck 0.00
GW Hand 0.61
GW Foot 1.08
And something like this for the BW miniature:
BW Tail 1.55
BW Arm 0.86
BW Head 0.47
BW Body 1.00
BW Leg 1.34
BW Neck 0.09
BW Hand 0.28
BW Foot 0.51
Looking at those numbers, the GW drawing tail is significantly longer than the BW miniature. The front arms/legs of the two are comparable - but the back legs of the BW miniature are longer...almost inline for something that could be a bipedal creature as well. Both heads are comparable in length, but as addressed early the actual shape is significantly different. The GW drawing is completely lacking a neck of any kind. The GW drawings hands are over twice as long as the BW miniatures hands, as are the feet.
So...the pose...really not so much a like, but still a common pose to find lizards in.
The bandoleer...nothing new there.
The chest gun...a somewhat unique idea, but simply an idea what GW can not copyright. The actual implementation of that idea is different on the BW miniature when compared to the GW drawing. The barrel on the BW miniature is shorter, it is a larger caliber and it doesn't have as many of the other tubes around it - whatever their purpose might be meant to represent. On the side of the gun which is visible on the GW drawing - you have 4 different tubes around the barrel of the gun. On the whole of the BW miniature you have three tubes which are spaced roughly equidistant around the barrel.
Under close inspection, there are many significant differences between the two works in question. Generally speaking, there are many more differences than there are things which are the same.
Are you a lawyer? That whole post reeked of lawyer, you know like how those orthodox Jews that aren't allowed to use the phone on Saturdays so they invented phones that you can programme to make specific calls at certain times on Saturday without needing to touch them so they can beat God on a technicality instead of just not using the fething phone?!
No concept looks exactly like the mini. The sedition wars female mechanic was a leggy model who turned out like rosey the rivetter, but it was obviously based off the art, the same applies here.
You can lawyer it up and pay attention to your 0.07 paw length difference as much as you like, I, and the majority of clearly impartial observers in this thread, including the perennialy anti GW phantom viper can accept the fact.
GW are awful hypocrites that often steal ideas off other people, but it doesn't alter the fact that whoever made that model saw GW's picture at some point, I don't for a moment believe anyone who is being entirely impartial can possibly believe otherwise.
It was better than yours though wasn't it, because mine was on topic and added something to the discussion, that a great many people are of the imression that the model is sculpted after the drawing.
GW are awful hypocrites that often steal ideas off other people, but it doesn't alter the fact that whoever made that model saw GW's picture at some point, I don't for a moment believe anyone who is being entirely impartial can possibly believe otherwise.
But that is in fact the point.
I dont think anyone is saying BW never saw the drawing, I dont think anyone is saying that BW did not use the idea presented by the drawing. What is being said is that it doesn't matter. What does matter is the actual implementation of that idea, and how much that qualifies under the law for protection. Those are the issues which woulld be evaluated in court by judges and lawyers to determine if infringement actually happened.
Since that is the core of the C&D, it is the core of whether or not it is a 100% copy or just heavily inspired by. You have to go beyond just "Yep, that looks like that...so it must be a copyright violation". Confusion is irrelevant largely for copyright claims, so those issues do not matter.
BTW - since the numbers presented are ratios, they are much more significant than you might think. For simplicity, just call them centimeters. A foot on one being 1 centimeter long while the foot on the other being only 5mm is significant, even if you ignore the shapes...which are also quite different.
mattyrm wrote: No concept looks exactly like the mini. The sedition wars female mechanic was a leggy model who turned out like rosey the rivetter, but it was obviously based off the art, the same applies here.
You can lawyer it up and pay attention to your 0.07 paw length difference as much as you like, I, and the majority of clearly impartial observers in this thread, including the perennialy anti GW phantom viper can accept the fact.
GW are awful hypocrites that often steal ideas off other people, but it doesn't alter the fact that whoever made that model saw GW's picture at some point, I don't for a moment believe anyone who is being entirely impartial can possibly believe otherwise.
Since copyright cases have been decided on far less, every point he brought up is valid. People say "they're very similar, it must be a copy" so you have to decide exactly how similar they are.
Kilkrazy wrote: Did I violate Henry's Moore's copyright by taking my pictures?
What if I made a limited edition of 100 prints and sold them?
What if I used my photo, or the Wikipedia photo, as a reference to make a drawing, and I made and sold 100 prints of the drawing?
If I did any of the above, would I have violated a moral code, even my actions were legal?
A lot of cases have been tried versus this exact issue...and, quite often - yes...it has been found to be a violation of copyright. Heck, by strict interpretation of the law - just taking a picture for your own personal photo album would likely be a violation of the sculptors copyright.
In most cases, it goes to what the focus of your picture is. If you have your family posing in front of a sculpture and then use that to make some holiday greeting cards - that would be allowed, as the focus of the picture would be your family...not the sculpture. If it were to just be the sculpture, as in the linked to image, then the copyright - the right to determine how and where a work is displayed - of the artist is violated (an issue that gets all mucky when it comes to hotlinking images from other websites too, and there you are not copying at all).
One of the more significant cases involved the background of a scene in the "Devil's Advocate". Although that case was ultimately settled out of court, it showed the significant level of control that an artist can exhert over people using their work. I am sure there are other examples as well - but that particular case jumps to my mind in relation to that question.
Kilkrazy wrote: Did I violate Henry's Moore's copyright by taking my pictures?
What if I made a limited edition of 100 prints and sold them?
What if I used my photo, or the Wikipedia photo, as a reference to make a drawing, and I made and sold 100 prints of the drawing?
If I did any of the above, would I have violated a moral code, even my actions were legal?
A lot of cases have been tried versus this exact issue...and, quite often - yes...it has been found to be a violation of copyright. Heck, by strict interpretation of the law - just taking a picture for your own personal photo album would likely be a violation of the sculptors copyright.
In most cases, it goes to what the focus of your picture is. If you have your family posing in front of a sculpture and then use that to make some holiday greeting cards - that would be allowed, as the focus of the picture would be your family...not the sculpture. If it were to just be the sculpture, as in the linked to image, then the copyright - the right to determine how and where a work is displayed - of the artist is violated (an issue that gets all mucky when it comes to hotlinking images from other websites too, and there you are not copying at all).
One of the more significant cases involved the background of a scene in the "Devil's Advocate". Although that case was ultimately settled out of court, it showed the significant level of control that an artist can exhert over people using their work. I am sure there are other examples as well - but that particular case jumps to my mind in relation to that question.
The sculpture itself would have to actually be copyrighted first.
Like with a couple of other GW things, they didn't solidly have the rights to something they were claiming was theirs.
Selym wrote: The sculpture itself would have to actually be copyrighted first.
Like with a couple of other GW things, they didn't solidly have the rights to something they were claiming was theirs.
Copyrighting is inherent. You do not have to register a copyright.
Kilkrazy wrote: Did I violate Henry's Moore's copyright by taking my pictures?
What if I made a limited edition of 100 prints and sold them?
What if I used my photo, or the Wikipedia photo, as a reference to make a drawing, and I made and sold 100 prints of the drawing?
If I did any of the above, would I have violated a moral code, even my actions were legal?
A lot of cases have been tried versus this exact issue...and, quite often - yes...it has been found to be a violation of copyright. Heck, by strict interpretation of the law - just taking a picture for your own personal photo album would likely be a violation of the sculptors copyright.
In most cases, it goes to what the focus of your picture is. If you have your family posing in front of a sculpture and then use that to make some holiday greeting cards - that would be allowed, as the focus of the picture would be your family...not the sculpture. If it were to just be the sculpture, as in the linked to image, then the copyright - the right to determine how and where a work is displayed - of the artist is violated (an issue that gets all mucky when it comes to hotlinking images from other websites too, and there you are not copying at all).
One of the more significant cases involved the background of a scene in the "Devil's Advocate". Although that case was ultimately settled out of court, it showed the significant level of control that an artist can exhert over people using their work. I am sure there are other examples as well - but that particular case jumps to my mind in relation to that question.
The sculpture itself would have to actually be copyrighted first.
Like with a couple of other GW things, they didn't solidly have the rights to something they were claiming was theirs.
It is art, not a toy(nor could it be argued otherwise). In the US, art has inherent copyright. There is no need to register it. The artist owns the copyright to that sculpture forever unless his rights are transferred via contract or death.
Copyright exists the exact second that the idea is put into expression in a tangible medium. The second his chisel hit stone and created something distinguishable from a block of stone, copyright existed for the work.
It is art, and art is inherently copyrighted or whatever, but do we know GW own it and not the artist that drew it like the stuff they tried to claim (technically steal?) in the chapterhouse case?
jonolikespie wrote: It is art, and art is inherently copyrighted or whatever, but do we know GW own it and not the artist that drew it like the stuff they tried to claim (technically steal?) in the chapterhouse case?
I was referring to the sculpture that Killkrazy had posted.
As far as GW owning the rights to the picture, that is unknown. The CHS case has shown that GW often "lost the paperwork" on much of their artwork and then tried to get several artists to sign away the rights after the fact(which most did not).
Now the fact that GW got caught in that could prompt a judge to require GW to show proof of ownership before allowing the case to proceed(which the CHS court did not do).
In the CHS case the court took GW's word that they owned everything they were suing over, and the court later found that GW's word is worth about as much as an OOP codex with no art or fluff left in it.
jonolikespie wrote: It is art, and art is inherently copyrighted or whatever, but do we know GW own it and not the artist that drew it like the stuff they tried to claim (technically steal?) in the chapterhouse case?
I was referring to the sculpture that Killkrazy had posted.
As far as GW owning the rights to the picture, that is unknown. The CHS case has shown that GW often "lost the paperwork" on much of their artwork and then tried to get several artists to sign away the rights after the fact(which most did not).
Now the fact that GW got caught in that could prompt a judge to require GW to show proof of ownership before allowing the case to proceed(which the CHS court did not do).
In the CHS case the court took GW's word that they owned everything they were suing over, and the court later found that GW's word is worth about as much as an OOP codex with no art or fluff left in it.
jonolikespie wrote: It is art, and art is inherently copyrighted or whatever, but do we know GW own it and not the artist that drew it like the stuff they tried to claim (technically steal?) in the chapterhouse case?
I was referring to the sculpture that Killkrazy had posted.
As far as GW owning the rights to the picture, that is unknown. The CHS case has shown that GW often "lost the paperwork" on much of their artwork and then tried to get several artists to sign away the rights after the fact(which most did not).
Now the fact that GW got caught in that could prompt a judge to require GW to show proof of ownership before allowing the case to proceed(which the CHS court did not do).
In the CHS case the court took GW's word that they owned everything they were suing over, and the court later found that GW's word is worth about as much as an OOP codex with no art or fluff left in it.
£0.50 on ebay then
I'm sure if you jump over to the ebay follies thread you could dig around and find one for $50 though.
jonolikespie wrote: It is art, and art is inherently copyrighted or whatever, but do we know GW own it and not the artist that drew it like the stuff they tried to claim (technically steal?) in the chapterhouse case?
I was referring to the sculpture that Killkrazy had posted.
As far as GW owning the rights to the picture, that is unknown. The CHS case has shown that GW often "lost the paperwork" on much of their artwork and then tried to get several artists to sign away the rights after the fact(which most did not).
Now the fact that GW got caught in that could prompt a judge to require GW to show proof of ownership before allowing the case to proceed(which the CHS court did not do).
In the CHS case the court took GW's word that they owned everything they were suing over, and the court later found that GW's word is worth about as much as an OOP codex with no art or fluff left in it.
£0.50 on ebay then
I'm sure if you jump over to the ebay follies thread you could dig around and find one for $50 though.
GW are awful hypocrites that often steal ideas off other people, but it doesn't alter the fact that whoever made that model saw GW's picture at some point, I don't for a moment believe anyone who is being entirely impartial can possibly believe otherwise.
But that is in fact the point.
I dont think anyone is saying BW never saw the drawing, I dont think anyone is saying that BW did not use the idea presented by the drawing. What is being said is that it doesn't matter. What does matter is the actual implementation of that idea, and how much that qualifies under the law for protection. Those are the issues which woulld be evaluated in court by judges and lawyers to determine if infringement actually happened.
Since that is the core of the C&D, it is the core of whether or not it is a 100% copy or just heavily inspired by. You have to go beyond just "Yep, that looks like that...so it must be a copyright violation". Confusion is irrelevant largely for copyright claims, so those issues do not matter.
BTW - since the numbers presented are ratios, they are much more significant than you might think. For simplicity, just call them centimeters. A foot on one being 1 centimeter long while the foot on the other being only 5mm is significant, even if you ignore the shapes...which are also quite different.
Yeah see, that's my point Sean, I'm not disagreeing with the vast majority of what you are saying, but at the end of the day, its an emotional appeal, and its not grounded in the way that laws work.
I agree, I think that the way GW acts is fethed up, so I could almost agree that they deserve fething. What goes around comes around right? But that isn't right, and its not the way the world works.
If you mug someone, get caught and go to prison, and then a week after your release a few years later, then get mugged, the cops don't say "Haha, what goes around comes around" they go and find the guy and he gets prosecuted too. Thats how it works, no doubt, you and I would agree there too.. I say feth the guy, swings and roundabouts, but the law is the law, and what we might want to happen, isn't what happens.
Thats what my point has been this whole thread. I'm not saying I don't think GW are very hypocritical considering that they have stolen many sci fi staples and are now stopping everyone else from doing what they have clearly done, because I don't think we should look at the case anything other than objectively, thats what we try to do as adults.
Therefore, I am ignoring all of the past cases and simply saying that in this case, they have clearly and obviously copied that drawing for their sculpt.
And the point is exactly that. If BWG drew the picture, and GW made the model, are you really telling me that you would not have any problem with it? I would. I would think that GW should at least offer half of the profits from the model to BWG or something, not just play dumb.
GW are really awful for the way that they persue other companies, but it is utterly irrelevant to this individual case. Thats all I am saying.
GW are awful hypocrites that often steal ideas off other people, but it doesn't alter the fact that whoever made that model saw GW's picture at some point, I don't for a moment believe anyone who is being entirely impartial can possibly believe otherwise.
But that is in fact the point.
I dont think anyone is saying BW never saw the drawing, I dont think anyone is saying that BW did not use the idea presented by the drawing. What is being said is that it doesn't matter. What does matter is the actual implementation of that idea, and how much that qualifies under the law for protection. Those are the issues which woulld be evaluated in court by judges and lawyers to determine if infringement actually happened.
Since that is the core of the C&D, it is the core of whether or not it is a 100% copy or just heavily inspired by. You have to go beyond just "Yep, that looks like that...so it must be a copyright violation". Confusion is irrelevant largely for copyright claims, so those issues do not matter.
BTW - since the numbers presented are ratios, they are much more significant than you might think. For simplicity, just call them centimeters. A foot on one being 1 centimeter long while the foot on the other being only 5mm is significant, even if you ignore the shapes...which are also quite different.
Yeah see, that's my point Sean, I'm not disagreeing with the vast majority of what you are saying, but at the end of the day, its an emotional appeal, and its not grounded in the way that laws work.
I agree, I think that the way GW acts is fethed up, so I could almost agree that they deserve fething. What goes around comes around right? But that isn't right, and its not the way the world works.
If you mug someone, get caught and go to prison, and then a week after your release a few years later, then get mugged, the cops don't say "Haha, what goes around comes around" they go and find the guy and he gets prosecuted too. Thats how it works, no doubt, you and I would agree there too.. I say feth the guy, swings and roundabouts, but the law is the law, and what we might want to happen, isn't what happens.
Thats what my point has been this whole thread. I'm not saying I don't think GW are very hypocritical considering that they have stolen many sci fi staples and are now stopping everyone else from doing what they have clearly done, because I don't think we should look at the case anything other than objectively, thats what we try to do as adults.
Therefore, I am ignoring all of the past cases and simply saying that in this case, they have clearly and obviously copied that drawing for their sculpt.
And the point is exactly that. If BWG drew the picture, and GW made the model, are you really telling me that you would not have any problem with it? I would. I would think that GW should at least offer half of the profits from the model to BWG or something, not just play dumb.
GW are really awful for the way that they persue other companies, but it is utterly irrelevant to this individual case. Thats all I am saying.
Sean is saying that intent to copy and access to the art are moot if copyright wasn't actually infringed(something that came up in the CHS case).
Sean has also outlined many ways in which the works are different, and those details are what actually determine infringement.
GW's history doesn't impact those facts. The models have readily visible differences in many different ways.
I don't know why people keep insisting that intent to infringe is the same as actually infringing.
mattyrm wrote: And the point is exactly that. If BWG drew the picture, and GW made the model, are you really telling me that you would not have any problem with it? I would. I would think that GW should at least offer half of the profits from the model to BWG or something, not just play dumb.
No, I wouldn't have a problem (beyond the hypocrisy) with them doing that. At all.
mattyrm wrote: And the point is exactly that. If BWG drew the picture, and GW made the model, are you really telling me that you would not have any problem with it? I would. I would think that GW should at least offer half of the profits from the model to BWG or something, not just play dumb.
No, I wouldn't have a problem (beyond the hypocrisy) with them doing that. At all.
Well I would, do you draw? If I spent twenty hours on a picture, and then GW or anyone just nicked it off my website and made a model with it, I think I would be entitled to something..
Or I mean, I'm not a greedy person and I'm financially comfortable, but they could at least fething ask!
mattyrm wrote: And the point is exactly that. If BWG drew the picture, and GW made the model, are you really telling me that you would not have any problem with it? I would. I would think that GW should at least offer half of the profits from the model to BWG or something, not just play dumb.
No, I wouldn't have a problem (beyond the hypocrisy) with them doing that. At all.
Well I would, do you draw? If I spent twenty hours on a picture, and then GW or anyone just nicked it off my website and made a model with it, I think I would be entitled to something..
Or I mean, I'm not a greedy person and I'm financially comfortable, but they could at least fething ask!
And you have the right to do the exact same thing GW is doing in this instance.
And the courts would let it shake out exactly like this one will (unless BWG folds).
I think BWG is in the clear on this, but that's my layman's opinion. I've worked on copyright cases for both the plaintiff and defendant but not from a legal standpoint, just a technical standpoint.
mattyrm wrote: And the point is exactly that. If BWG drew the picture, and GW made the model, are you really telling me that you would not have any problem with it? I would. I would think that GW should at least offer half of the profits from the model to BWG or something, not just play dumb.
No, I wouldn't have a problem (beyond the hypocrisy) with them doing that. At all.
Well I would, do you draw? If I spent twenty hours on a picture, and then GW or anyone just nicked it off my website and made a model with it, I think I would be entitled to something..
Or I mean, I'm not a greedy person and I'm financially comfortable, but they could at least fething ask!
I spent the majority of my adult life as a creator of copyrighted goods (computer programming). I have dealt extensively with patents and trademarks. I have been paid for graphic design work, illustration and sculpting (both 3D and traditional). It isn't something that I am just taking a position on at a whim by any means.
That said - no, assuming the same level of changes were done as in this case - I would not be upset. What upsets me is the hypocrisy within GW, and amongst their defenders in this regard, where you see them doing many of the same things over the past 35 years and then they use their size to force compliance even when they are not necessarily in the right, legally speaking.
I believe that IP laws, specifically copyright have become way out of whack from their intended purpose. Initially, they were meant to allow artists to make a living being artists and encourage creativity. In order to accomplish this, they had a short term, where the artists had exclusive rights to their work and the details of it. Following that period of time though, the work entered the public domain - though the artist still maintained exclusive right to make copies of it. Real copies - like a word for word copy of a book or a block printing of a sketch (long before modern technologies of course). If another sculptor would sculpt something based on a previous sculpture...that wouldn't be considered a copy at the time...they needed to apply skill and craftsmanship to do so - but a casting would be a copy.
This short period ensured that the artist was able to put food in their belly, but it also ensured that they did not become fat and lazy off from a single work. However, it also ensured a healthy public domain which allowed young artists to create new works based on popular concepts of the time, encouraging competition through imitation and generally promoting the spread of ideas. The artist knows that they can collect a check for 10 years time - but after that...they need to make something new and innovative again.
With the current laws, it doesn't take much effort to locate prior works which could put the new item in violation of copyrights based on a casual examination. Copyright laws that last 120+ years will make it worse, so if you want to get tied up with gut feelings and emotional pleas - you will be bent over in pain for quite some time. Even off the gut feeling, it is a 10 year old image from a single page in a couple of books that (I think) are out of print. The artist has been paid, GW has been paid, even going off my gut feeling/emotional response - I would say that if the consumer wants a Loxatl miniature and GW won't give it to them...why should BW not be able to?
Apologies for the late retroactive reply, been busy with a new project. Really exciting stuff, that strangely enough applies to what we're talking about, but sadly I can't say more.
You ask me why I bring up your art. Well, it was an apparently futile attempt to make you recognise the rampant hypocrisy and hubris you display by pretending you and you alone are capable of acting as arbiter of what is "inspiration" and what is "creative bankruptcy".
We're done here.
Oh look, some guy trying to be the last word on the internet. You're done here because your argument is done. And now you're just trying to lash at me and ignore what is right in front of your eyes.
There's two, or more arguments going on here, both of which I'm trying to address. The legal argument, which I'm trying to address less, and the moral and creative argument.
Legally, people are harking on the paperwork and the specific circumstances of the Chapterhouse case too much. Legal aspects will resolve themselves in legal ways. Any amount of wishing that GW forgot to keep its paperwork doesn't apply to this particular instance. It is fair to ask for proof of ownership, and that's what BWM should do. But then, that's a bit of an admission that they used that image for their miniature in the first place, which goes counter to the arguments that people are saying there are no similarities worth noting between the concepts. Honestly, this side bores me to no end, and is why we hire lawyers for. If they use that as a defense, that's almost, but not quite, an admission of use.
And as such, on the moral and creative side, that means that person did use the artwork as more than just inspiration.
Another argument is whether they used the image at all.
But really Sean's argument is better.
Still, computer based goods are drastically different from art. The programmer's way of handling code is muuuch different and can cloud your view of the arts.
Programming is just as much a technical discipline as it is creative. What you produce has a different purpose than art. You can view code and use a great deal of another person's code because it is a technical matter. Code is the means to a functional goal, it is not the goal in and of itself. Art is the goal of itself. Code can be quantified much more easily by its function. This is coming from someone who also once did computer programming and swtiched to art, I know this first hand, just as you do.
You have basically admitted you have a stake in seeing GW fail in this regard, as well as a disdain for copyright law. In many ways I agree with you, but I do believe that those feeling are clouding your judgement in this case. And for all the talk about how a lizard is a lizard, sometimes a lizard isn't just a lizard, and you also admitted the tech it wears, the positions of that tech are problematic, which one of the things central to the issue. You're harping too much on the lizard, and not seeing the whole. A piece of code, not the entire program.
It seems to make you come up with technical argument about it, as though citing tiny minute technical details will change the. No concept remains entirely the same when going to sculpt. If art were judged on the same exacting technical level as code, every work would be completely different.
Copyright is copyright, there are problems, but we work here with what we have. But you forget one reason why copyright is in place, which is to also help foster creativity and progress by allowing creators to keep what they make, regardless of the shenanigans from major corporations increasing the time they hold on to it. That's a separate issue for others to figure out.
I haven't had time to read through your arguments about creative bankruptcy, but I actually do want to address them properly so I'll have to do that later. I have literally been working overnight the last few days.
BWM is not entitled in any way to make a Loxatl miniature. That's something you have to remember. Not to mention, GW is still within a normal copyright period for this piece of art. But, the original intent for copyright in the US, and like other IP laws that spawned from it was for 14 years initially, and an extra 14 years that had to be specifically applied for. How long as GW been in business, how old is that piece of art? I doubt it is older than 38 years, although it may be approaching that time.
If they don't want a miniature of that design, then there won't be. BWM, if they have a good enough artist, could honestly have made a design influenced by the Loxatl and put that out, all without any problems. What's more, BWM would then be able to claim and keep copyright on that work, even producing more of that sculpt to profit.
Think of it this way. Is there some scrap of art out there of yours, or code, that's just sitting there unused? You aren't doing anything with it. Someone comes along and thinks the same way you do, then makes a sculpt of it or puts it into a program and puts it out there without your consent. Now, that's the big deal. I get the feeling that you would actually give consent assuming it's not for direct profit. A lot of coders do put out code. But the key is, the ability to give or deny consent at all. You may have issues with how long corporations grasp at that ability, but don't forget it protects you. So, why shouldn't BWM not be able to make a Loxatl miniature? For the same reason they should not be able to make a miniature of one of your leftover artwork, or mine, at least until a reasonable amount of time has passed.
There is a BIG difference between "disdain for copyright law" and criticism about changes, and even relatively recent ones, that have been made to copyright law.
Intellectual property was always intended to be limited in scope, and its ultimate purpose is to serve a public good by encouraging creativity, encouraging new work, encouraging the spread of ideas, and encouraging competition.
The US Constitution is fairly unambiguous. Article 1, Section 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Limited protection for a limited period of time. Especially with respect to Copyright law, that 'limited' period has been extended and extended and extended and extended far beyond a limited period that serves the principle purpose of the statute: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..."
So, please do not equate reasoned criticism of certain developments within the statute and the case law as disdain for the law. One could make a much more convincing argument that it is exactly the opposite.
Admittedly, this hourly wage is also used to cover the salaries of any staff the lawyer retains, pay rent/utilities/misc. expenses for offices, and any other expenses. Also, of course, downtime. Lawyers are paid well, likely overpaid, but not as much as it often seems.
Most expert witnesses are professors or other professionals and do not employ staff in that manner. All their day to day expenses are covered, any research gets done by graduate students if it goes beyond their own time. The expert witness fees are for the most part gravy on top of their regular job...pay for that trip to Tahiti on their Christmas Holiday.
Sorry, I was skimming again and thought the 750 was a lawyer's hourly rate, not an expert witness.
Admittedly, this hourly wage is also used to cover the salaries of any staff the lawyer retains, pay rent/utilities/misc. expenses for offices, and any other expenses. Also, of course, downtime. Lawyers are paid well, likely overpaid, but not as much as it often seems.
Most expert witnesses are professors or other professionals and do not employ staff in that manner. All their day to day expenses are covered, any research gets done by graduate students if it goes beyond their own time. The expert witness fees are for the most part gravy on top of their regular job...pay for that trip to Tahiti on their Christmas Holiday.
Sorry, I was skimming again and thought the 750 was a lawyer's hourly rate, not an expert witness.
I cannot possibly countenance why GW would have paid that man so much, and GW is flat out blessed that the issues have been decided pre-trial. An expert on the stand testifying to having been paid more than $1,000.00 per hour next to experts that are receiving much more modest compensation can, and has, torpedoed cases.
Admittedly, this hourly wage is also used to cover the salaries of any staff the lawyer retains, pay rent/utilities/misc. expenses for offices, and any other expenses. Also, of course, downtime. Lawyers are paid well, likely overpaid, but not as much as it often seems.
Most expert witnesses are professors or other professionals and do not employ staff in that manner. All their day to day expenses are covered, any research gets done by graduate students if it goes beyond their own time. The expert witness fees are for the most part gravy on top of their regular job...pay for that trip to Tahiti on their Christmas Holiday.
Sorry, I was skimming again and thought the 750 was a lawyer's hourly rate, not an expert witness.
Admittedly, this hourly wage is also used to cover the salaries of any staff the lawyer retains, pay rent/utilities/misc. expenses for offices, and any other expenses. Also, of course, downtime. Lawyers are paid well, likely overpaid, but not as much as it often seems.
Most expert witnesses are professors or other professionals and do not employ staff in that manner. All their day to day expenses are covered, any research gets done by graduate students if it goes beyond their own time. The expert witness fees are for the most part gravy on top of their regular job...pay for that trip to Tahiti on their Christmas Holiday.
Sorry, I was skimming again and thought the 750 was a lawyer's hourly rate, not an expert witness.
I think the top paid UK lawyer bills out at about 1000 pounds an hour and the average hourly billing for a London partner is between 600-700 pounds.
This particular lawyer (Michael Bloch QC) is who lucasfilm hired over that stormtrooper armour issue. He's pretty freaking pricey.
Yea, well, why the hell hire they guy who lost a case incredibly germane to your business? That is, like, a BIG red flag. Even if it does not mean he is a bad lawyer, which it doesn't necessarily mean, it means he exposes you to having that court case dragged into your case. There's nothing like relevant precedent that supports your position in which the person you are arguing against was wrong!
Maybe Bloch was trying to have a go at fighting that decision...oh wait, no, his opinion in the CHS case had nothing to do with that. It only came up when CHS's rebuttal witness pulled up the Lucasfilm case. Man, wasn't that out of left field...
Seriously, it isn't even just a bad decision in hindsight. It was a bad decision at the time. My guess is that someone at GW was equating high fees with high quality, which do not always go hand in hand. "Well, he is going to charge us more than $1,000 an hour, so he must be the best!
That is corporate thinking. When it all goes pear shaped, you can say, "well I hired the best guy, so I did my job. He is the one who F'd it up, not me."
Well, he wasn't able to get the UKSC to overturn the trial or court of appeal on the sculpture aspect, he was able to get them to reverse the lower courts on the justiciability issue and abandon the Mozambique rule. Letting Lucasfilm go after Ainsworth for US copyright breaches in the UK, which blocks the sale of the stormtrooper stuff in the US.
He didn't lose the case, he took a losing set of facts and spun half of it into a victory, overturning a century or so of precedent in the process
That is corporate thinking. When it all goes pear shaped, you can say, "well I hired the best guy, so I did my job. He is the one who F'd it up, not me."
Very true. Same goes with government, have you noticed that no matter what happens, nobody ever gets fired?
No matter the scandal, or the deaths, feth ups in the health of police services always seem to end in "well, it wasn't MY fault" and nobody is accountable. I guess thats why everything goes to gak in the world, people are more interested in covering their asses than getting the job done.
Still, works for us. With any luck GW will get crushed and the floodgates will open for competitors to start hocking their wares. It might even be a good thing for getting official GW products, because it might motivate them to release gak speedier if they know others will make and sell the models that they don't!
czakk wrote: Well, he wasn't able to get the UKSC to overturn the trial or court of appeal on the sculpture aspect, he was able to get them to reverse the lower courts on the justiciability issue and abandon the Mozambique rule. Letting Lucasfilm go after Ainsworth for US copyright breaches in the UK, which blocks the sale of the stormtrooper stuff in the US.
He didn't lose the case, he took a losing set of facts and spun half of it into a victory, overturning a century or so of precedent in the process
+1 czakk. Thanks for the clarification. Alas, I am not actually a lawyer, and was not dialed in to those particularities of the facts, having little experience in both international law and UK law.
All in all, that decision does not seem to be something that I agree with, but it principally has to do with the disparity between US copyright law and UK copyright law, an issue that was also bubbling around in the CHS case. The US really needs to tighten up its copyright laws and bring in some sort of industrial design, and/or make/use exceptions. As it is, one could interpret US statute in similar ways, but how far does that get you? Not much.
People do not make accessories for work of art. That is the fundamental problem. You make accessories for functional products. US copyright code seems to be very bad at navigating the "toys" space, that is, products in which the value is the aesthetic, but which are ultimately utilitarian. It is hard as Hell to copyright clothing in the US because it is largely seen as functional, which I think it fine, because it is. But the line between functional and aesthetic cannot be drawn by the reason someone buys a product, but rather should be drawn on a more objective basis, such as how the product is manufactured and the use to which it is intended to be put.
