https://www.change.org/petitions/electronic-arts-inc-acknowledge-copyright-infringement-and-pay-necessary-compensation

Hmm...

Looks likes the petition's information is incorrect (Dark Alliance is still in production)

While I am all for people defending their copyrights, trademarks and IP... Online petitions literally do nothing.

I suspect a single handwritten letter to GW's legal will do infinitly more than 60k electronics sigantures to EA. In the end, it is GW's IP which they must defend in order to keep it, fans of GW or any company can't defend a copyright on behalf of the holder.

For the longest time, a banner in Warsong Gulch's flag room in World of Warcraft had a texture with an image on it. The image was of an OOP forgeworld fantasy orc Bust. Hell, it still may be there. Was it a homage? Was it a jab at a competator? Was it a lazy artist grabbing some crap of google? who knows. It is the owner of the bust to complain if they feel it is an issue.

Wait... a C&C browser game? Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

It's similar, but it looks like it was made for kids. Bulky stubby barrels and the like. Probably not enough to guarantee a win i court. Also the baneblade does have a real life equivalent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-heavy_tank

There was a thread on the tank image some time ago.

And I mentioned there that GW will never go after a company who can actually afford to hire a lawyer, let alone one that can hire hundreds of them... and as mentioned above, the Baneblade design is not at all inspired by other real world and fictional tank designs...

nectarprime wrote:https://www.change.org/petitions/electronic-arts-inc-acknowledge-copyright-infringement-and-pay-necessary-compensation

Its a fething tank. Get over it.

GW does not own copyright on tanks.

If anything the Russians should bomb the hell out of Nottingham for GW stealing their ideas and making them into a baneblade. etc.

GW are big boys, they do not need some slowed online petition. They are litigious enough to take care of themselves, as they have made painfully obvious when picking on those who do not have the funding to defend themselves as GW can.

Plus your petition makes some reckless statments putting you at risk for legal action.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is not my petition nor image and I am in no way affiliated with it.

Hellfury wrote:

nectarprime wrote:https://www.change.org/petitions/electronic-arts-inc-acknowledge-copyright-infringement-and-pay-necessary-compensation

Its a fething tank. Get over it.

GW does not own copyright on tanks.

Sorry, it is very much clearly a baneblamde which I can find no real life tank which even remotley resembles a baneblade. So they are perfectly able to own a copyright on 'tanks' if those tanks are uniqley theirs which a large number of GW's tanks are.

Heh, seems to be all the rage these days. Some game on FB was doing the same with the TK range.
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?330454-Facebook-games-are-stealing-Concept-art-from-GW!&highlight=tomb+kings+facebook

I wonder if the person who originated the online petition knows what he's asking EA to do, and what the consequences would be to EA if they "acknowledge their plagiarism in a public statement"

Likely not.

If anything, GW should be pleased that they getting more maintstream coverage.

Anyway, it's as Silver said. GW would never go up against a company as large as EA with their own legion of lawyers. Hell, they can barely make a case against a much smaller company.

biccat wrote:I wonder if the person who originated the online petition knows what he's asking EA to do, and what the consequences would be to EA if they "acknowledge their plagiarism in a public statement"

Likely not.

Given all the crap that EA has been pulling lately, I think they do.

But peoples views on the internet affect no-one and tend to be ignored...


Nom

Are people really sideing with EA over GW?

My how the world turns!

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Are people really sideing with EA over GW?

My how the world turns!

Vote EA! This time they're the lesser of two evils.

I kind of hope GW DOSE go out for legal action. On both the Facebook game and EA. It is their IP, and if they hold copyright on that armourcast model, then I honestly think that they have a solid case here. I mean, they look IDENTICAL!

Grimtuff wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Are people really sideing with EA over GW?

My how the world turns!

Vote EA! This time they're the lesser of two evils.

Hell no they aren't! They are a terrible, terrible company.

Fair enough about the Armorcast one, but that may be Armorcast's jurisdiction not GWs depending on who has the copyright to that particular model.

nectarprime wrote:

Grimtuff wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Are people really sideing with EA over GW?

My how the world turns!

Vote EA! This time they're the lesser of two evils.

Hell no they aren't! They are a terrible, terrible company.

And the award for missing the obvious Simpsons reference goes to...

nkelsch wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

nectarprime wrote:https://www.change.org/petitions/electronic-arts-inc-acknowledge-copyright-infringement-and-pay-necessary-compensation

Its a fething tank. Get over it.

GW does not own copyright on tanks.

Sorry, it is very much clearly a baneblamde which I can find no real life tank which even remotley resembles a baneblade. So they are perfectly able to own a copyright on 'tanks' if those tanks are uniqley theirs which a large number of GW's tanks are.

All I have to say is good luck in that infringement case.

nkelsch wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

nectarprime wrote:https://www.change.org/petitions/electronic-arts-inc-acknowledge-copyright-infringement-and-pay-necessary-compensation

Its a fething tank. Get over it.

GW does not own copyright on tanks.

Sorry, it is very much clearly a baneblamde which I can find no real life tank which even remotley resembles a baneblade. So they are perfectly able to own a copyright on 'tanks' if those tanks are uniqley theirs which a large number of GW's tanks are.

Char B1, a WW2 French heavy tank. (Image used for purposes of illustration and review.)


Tank from Gundam


British WW1 tank.

All of these tanks have strong resemblances to aspects of the Baneblade.

EA definitely copied the Armour Cast Bainblade. I'm not an IP lawyer, but I think GW would win in court. There's brand confusion. I took one look at the Forgotten Bombard Tank and immediately recognized it as the Baneblade.

Yeah, online petitions are mostly worthless. If GW felt they had the clout to fight EA, they would.

KillKrazy wrote:All of these tanks have strong resemblances to aspects of the Baneblade.

Yeah but come on KK. The one EA has made is basically a slightly different Baneblade. I'm not one to side with GW over anything, but even I can see how there'd be a case here.

AlexHolker wrote:Wait... a C&C browser game? Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Are you surprised? After C&C4 I'm surprised that franchise didn't die of shame...

Kilkrazy wrote:



All of these tanks have strong resemblances to aspects of the Baneblade.

Not really. They look no more similar to each other than a VW bug does to a mini cooper just because they are both small cars with headlights.

If you are saying there is almost no distinguishable design between these 3 tanks, the EA tank and the baneblade, it is extremely clear the EA tank is directly based of the exact design of the the armor cast baneblade and not a 'happy coincidence' of generic tank designs.

None of them even have a passive resemblance to the trapezoid turrets, the type of armor plating, location of things, number of turrets, design of turrets, Placement of turrets and so on.

An argument that it isn't a baneblade and never originated from a baneblade is not reasonable. It isn't like the resemblence between a GW rhino and generic real life APCs.

@ kilkrazy: You're pics appear to be broke.

Nom

The armorcast baneblade like many armorcast things of that time is just upscaled from the Epic model, so I think GW would own the design now, Armorcast weren't really given much room to be creative with the designs beyond their Epic equivalents.

To the OP, I don't get it. Is it basically some whiteknight swooping in to defend GW IP and starting a petition for GW to sue EA? Why does the person care enough to do this? Why does it matter?

There's a lot of 3d models of the baneblade floating around.

I'd put good odds on this being the result of a lazy designer simply grabbing a random torrent off the internet and calling it a day instead of doing their job.

This was already discussed here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/436520.page

nkelsch wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:



All of these tanks have strong resemblances to aspects of the Baneblade.

Not really. They look no more similar to each other than a VW bug does to a mini cooper just because they are both small cars with headlights.

If you are saying there is almost no distinguishable design between these 3 tanks, the EA tank and the baneblade, it is extremely clear the EA tank is directly based of the exact design of the the armor cast baneblade and not a 'happy coincidence' of generic tank designs.

None of them even have a passive resemblance to the trapezoid turrets, the type of armor plating, location of things, number of turrets, design of turrets, Placement of turrets and so on.

An argument that it isn't a baneblade and never originated from a baneblade is not reasonable. It isn't like the resemblence between a GW rhino and generic real life APCs.

What I'm saying is that GW copied the Baneblade off a bunch of historical designs and EA copied their tank off a similar bunch of historical designs.

Kilkrazy wrote:
What I'm saying is that GW copied the Baneblade off a bunch of historical designs and EA copied their tank off a similar bunch of historical designs.

In this situation, that is bogus because there is no way two companies would have come to so exact a duplicate design that are so different from historical designs. I know some people wish to never see GW might be correct but that is clearly a baneblade and not a generic historical super heavy 75 tonne tank.

There is too much suspension of disbelief to believe this is a legitimately independent created design. It is a direct electronic duplication of the physical model.

Kilkrazy wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:



All of these tanks have strong resemblances to aspects of the Baneblade.

Not really. They look no more similar to each other than a VW bug does to a mini cooper just because they are both small cars with headlights.

If you are saying there is almost no distinguishable design between these 3 tanks, the EA tank and the baneblade, it is extremely clear the EA tank is directly based of the exact design of the the armor cast baneblade and not a 'happy coincidence' of generic tank designs.

None of them even have a passive resemblance to the trapezoid turrets, the type of armor plating, location of things, number of turrets, design of turrets, Placement of turrets and so on.

An argument that it isn't a baneblade and never originated from a baneblade is not reasonable. It isn't like the resemblence between a GW rhino and generic real life APCs.

What I'm saying is that GW copied the Baneblade off a bunch of historical designs and EA copied their tank off a similar bunch of historical designs.

They are almost identical. The suggestion that two companies independently came to such a similar design based on a wide range of historical material seems unlikely. It's clear that one was copied from the other, the parallel evolution argument is a bit improbable.

Whether GW could actually make anything out of it is a different matter, given their difficulties with chapterhouse it's probably not worth their time or money.

Howard A Treesong wrote:it's probably not worth their time or money.

Likewise, GW has shown their incompetence in the matter with poking Raging Heroes for funsies and failing against Chapterhouse. It's free-pickings season for GW's IP and there's nothing Tom Kirby can do to stop it.

this petition is useless. its a fan asking for an apology letter and potentially opening the door for litigation.

if GW hasn't filed a lawsuit, then EA isn't gonna do squat.

Grimtuff wrote:Heh, seems to be all the rage these days. Some game on FB was doing the same with the TK range.
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?330454-Facebook-games-are-stealing-Concept-art-from-GW!&highlight=tomb+kings+facebook

A few months back, there was a thread on the PP boards about a FB game using art depicting a slightly altered Man-o-War. This is absolutely nothing new regarding FB games.

Howard A Treesong wrote:The armorcast baneblade like many armorcast things of that time is just upscaled from the Epic model, so I think GW would own the design now, Armorcast weren't really given much room to be creative with the designs beyond their Epic equivalents.

The first Armorcast Baneblade model was based on the original White Dwarf DIY Baneblade article as well as the Epic model.
Copyright info on the models stated "Copyright 199x Games Workshop". Armorcast never owned the copyright on any of the GW models we produced. The models were produced under a license from Game Workshop that allowed us to us GW copyrighted stuff.

Tim

If GW does not try to enforce its copyright in this instance it says a whole lot about GW. In my opinion they are interested in defending their IP so that they can limit the other miniatures and accessories on the market, and thus 'encourage' us to buy whatever they happen to produce, including 41 dollar elite infantry and squads with only one special weapon per box.

Howard A Treesong wrote:To the OP, I don't get it. Is it basically some whiteknight swooping in to defend GW IP and starting a petition for GW to sue EA? Why does the person care enough to do this? Why does it matter?

Seems to be the epitome of white knighting.

Independent creation and scope of copyright are two different legal issues.

I think it is fair to say that the scope of the copyright inherent in the unregistered "Baneblade" work is relatively narrow given several factors such as elements drawn from public domain sources, functional elements, and elements inherent to the concept.

Independent creation is simply an affirmative defense rebutting an inference of access. You can't copy something unless you have access to it. Even so, I think rebutting access would be difficult in this instance, but theoretically possible.

As narrow as the "Baneblade" copyright may be, it would be limited to the those elements of the work that are original. Copyright only exists in original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. The relevant question would be, taking the two works side by side, would you find that the accused work unfairly appropriates that which is original in the "Baneblade" copyright?

Is that the case? Maybe, maybe not. But it is not necessarily a cut and dry issue. This is because, as nkelsch has made an effort to point out, the question of substantial similarity does not really involve the so-called "ordinary observer" test. Under Atari, the observer is more than ordinary because the hypothetical observer must be aware of the scope of the copyright, and take that into account.

Just wait kids, right when the 40k MMO comes out Blizzard is making Titan, their own distant future MMO.

To keep this from happening more, they must defend their copyright.

nectarprime wrote:To keep this from happening more, they must defend their copyright.

Again, how?

You're suggesting that GW go up against companies like EA and Activision Blizzard? You do realize this'll do nothing more than drive GW into the gr-

Hang on. Wait. I've been seeing this all wrong. We should totally help this petition!*

*Disclaimer: No, we shouldn't. And you're a complete feth-wit.

Just out of interest how does copywrite work in the car world a lot of the euro-boxes coming out these days all look similar yet no one is screaming copyright infringement

infinite_array wrote:

nectarprime wrote:To keep this from happening more, they must defend their copyright.

Again, how?

You're suggesting that GW go up against companies like EA and Activision Blizzard? You do realize this'll do nothing more than drive GW into the gr-

Hang on. Wait. I've been seeing this all wrong. We should totally help this petition!*

*Disclaimer: No, we shouldn't. And you're a complete feth-wit.

GW should sue Ebay too!

nectarprime wrote:To keep this from happening more, they must defend their copyright.

Why must they defend it? Does it matter in this case? Assuming they would be guaranteed a win, are GW actually affected by this that it's worth taking on a huge company to stop them using a single thing that looks like their baneblade? It's not as though EA are producing a range if toys based on their design that could conflict with GW sales.

nkelsch wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

nectarprime wrote:https://www.change.org/petitions/electronic-arts-inc-acknowledge-copyright-infringement-and-pay-necessary-compensation

Its a fething tank. Get over it.

GW does not own copyright on tanks.

Sorry, it is very much clearly a baneblamde which I can find no real life tank which even remotley resembles a baneblade. So they are perfectly able to own a copyright on 'tanks' if those tanks are uniqley theirs which a large number of GW's tanks are.

It does look like baneblade, but Im sure what he meant was, GW sure have thick skin to accuse others of infringing when they infringes almost everything else.
eg WW 1+2 tanks he was talking about.

Subject: EA infringes GW copyright

My reply. Prove in court, otherwise all of this is a mute point.

Adam LongWalker wrote:

Subject: EA infringes GW copyright

My reply. Prove in court, otherwise all of this is a mute point.

MOOT, not mute.

Also, to get REALLY technical, if it goes to court, it really is a moot point.

fixed

An online petition seems like the wrong way to go about this. Who actually listens to those anyhow?

Well, I've just figured out the joke in all of this -

Baneblade and Bonecruncher - Epic: Armageddon

Bombard and Grinder - Electronic Arts

E.A.

/thread

Platuan4th wrote:

Adam LongWalker wrote:

Subject: EA infringes GW copyright

My reply. Prove in court, otherwise all of this is a mute point.

MOOT, not mute.

Also, to get REALLY technical, if it goes to court, it really is a moot point.

Keep forgetting age group and slang terms. And yes I know what Moot point means.

Mute point is something I remember in the late 70's early 80's as an term to be used in reference to "tuning out of a subject with your remote control" because that subject is not longer worth the time to deal with.

I should have also should have added about whom('s) I was referring too when I stated "Mute point". That statement should have commented on this topic as well.

GW can take care of itself and its "Works". Having someone trying to post a URL on a protest to sign up people is a waste of pixels. Do we know if GW was informed about the material before hand? Perhaps they given the okay to use it.

We do not know all of the tangents of this. Only EA and GW does.

wow...Is that real nectarprime? That is astounding. If someone is looking to raise a fit over potential copyright infringement, that is a worthy focus of such attention.

weeble1000 wrote:wow...Is that real nectarprime? That is astounding. If someone is looking to raise a fit over potential copyright infringement, that is a worthy focus of such attention.

I am floored. Can anyone now continue to claim that the forgotten tanks are independent creationism based off historical examples and are not direct 1 for 1 electronic copies of physical copyrighted GW models?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day and sometimes people legitimately infringe on GW properties.

you are all asuming GW has not given the go ahead to EA for this, how do you all know EA didnt write GW a letter and say
"Hey, you know that company thats going under and has the rights to your games? well check this out and think what a multi-million $ company like EA can do for you!"

Also fun fact guys, it seems that the only reason this topic keeps popping up on Dakka and Warseer and other sites again TWO WEEKS later is that it's front-page on Reddit.

Congrats GW White Knights!

Formosa wrote:you are all asuming GW has not given the go ahead to EA for this, how do you all know EA didnt write GW a letter and say
"Hey, you know that company thats going under and has the rights to your games? well check this out and think what a multi-million $ company like EA can do for you!"

Because EA already has the Command and Conquer franchise to drive into the ground further. Marinehammer 40k can wait its turn.

Absolutionis wrote:Also fun fact guys, it seems that the only reason this topic keeps popping up on Dakka and Warseer and other sites again TWO WEEKS later is that it's front-page on Reddit.

Congrats GW White Knights!

Formosa wrote:you are all asuming GW has not given the go ahead to EA for this, how do you all know EA didnt write GW a letter and say
"Hey, you know that company thats going under and has the rights to your games? well check this out and think what a multi-million $ company like EA can do for you!"

Because EA already has the Command and Conquer franchise to drive into the ground further. Marinehammer 40k can wait its turn.

CnC was a naff franchise anyway, it has always been outclassed by better games that were not marketed as well ala BF vs CoD (let you lot decide that hot topic lol), I do admit the the Westwood ones were ok, but not compared to Total annilation and the like, and suppreme commander beats the pants off any of the newer CnC games

Formosa wrote:you are all asuming GW has not given the go ahead to EA for this, how do you all know EA didnt write GW a letter and say
"Hey, you know that company thats going under and has the rights to your games? well check this out and think what a multi-million $ company like EA can do for you!"

Again, it's a browser game. Stealing someone's designs and sticking them in a browser game to impress them is like if one if those surprise renovation shows managed to burn the house down. On purpose.

Absolutionis wrote:Congrats GW White Knights!

I'm no white knight, and if that Grinder picture above is real, then GW need to step in. This is EA just taking GW's stuff wholesale and claiming it as their own.

I also am in the infringement camp. Both of the images posted are pretty damning, in my lay opinion. I have a hard time with the "historical influences" argument, especially for the bonecruncha. Regretfully, but righteously, we must turn the wheel, let the hammer slam into the hull, and....

RELEASE THE IPQUISITION!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Absolutionis wrote:Congrats GW White Knights!

I'm no white knight, and if that Grinder picture above is real, then GW need to step in. This is EA just taking GW's stuff wholesale and claiming it as their own.

And after the awfully-managed and misguided Chapterhouse quagmire, do you honestly think Games Workshop has any capability of challenging Electronic Arts?

GW's failure to properly allocate their resources in defending their IP has left the doors wide open for thieves.

It's a pity this is happening.
It's wrong that this is happening.
But it's somewhat karmically satisfying nonetheless after the Raging-Heroes strongarming. It's almost beautiful on how karmically deserving this is.

Looks like GW needs more money.

There's a thought: could THQ/Relic sue, on the grounds that it is their (exclusive?) licence to make 40k computer games that is being infringed upon?

This is like BNP vs. UKIP. Whoever loses, we win.

From what I understand of the GW lawsuits that have happend they won't do anything. They went after chapterhouse because GW say people were getting confused and chapterhouse started to take the p**s and skirting round names and using GW logos as direct competition. (I'm not wanting to get in to the rights and wrongs of this here. There is other threads for that).

EA have directly copied the look of the old baneblade, but I can't see GW doing anything because there is no loss to them. It's not damageing there reputation (infact going to court could make them look more litigious, no matter how "evil" EA are) or costing them anything so I can see them leaving it be.

Agamemnon2 wrote:This is like BNP vs. UKIP. Whoever loses, we win.

Hardly. I realy don't get this "GW are evil" stuff. Yes they have made some poor choices (in the vew of some) and had some mistakes (Finecast), like any company, but "evil"? Hardly. Expensive is not the same as evil. I would say they are quite the opposite.

Anyway, this is way off topic...

Electro wrote:From what I understand of the GW lawsuits that have happend they won't do anything. They went after chapterhouse because GW say people were getting confused and chapterhouse started to take the p**s and skirting round names and using GW logos as direct competition. (I'm not wanting to get in to the rights and wrongs of this here. There is other threads for that).

EA have directly copied the look of the old baneblade, but I can't see GW doing anything because there is no loss to them. It's not damageing there reputation (infact going to court could make them look more litigious, no matter how "evil" EA are) or costing them anything so I can see them leaving it be.

I thought companies risked losing their IP though if they don't protect it well enough. Or something - I can't say I'm an expert.

Electro wrote:From what I understand of the GW lawsuits that have happend they won't do anything. They went after chapterhouse because GW say people were getting confused and chapterhouse started to take the p**s and skirting round names and using GW logos as direct competition. (I'm not wanting to get in to the rights and wrongs of this here. There is other threads for that).

And why did they go after Raging Heroes?

It's hard to mistake this:
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0034/6452/files/lamassu-head-sculpt.jpg?1291119972

For this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v110/BilboBaggins/Warhammer/LordonLammasu1.jpg

...especially considering the GW one had been discontinued for several years.

It's GW strong-arming smaller companies because GW is simply bigger.
They won't do anything because EA is the one that can freely pick on GW's IP with no fear of retaliation.

GW could just ignore it. If they publicly acknowledge the infringement and do nothing, that could put their IP at risk because they have openly chosen not to defend the IP.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I thought companies risked losing their IP though if they don't protect it well enough. Or something - I can't say I'm an expert.

I'm not IP expert (My area is more finance and contract law, as an accountant rather than a lawyer) but from my understanding that would only realy apply to someone in direct competiton. So, if they are aware of this they could lose the right to exclusive use of the banblade shape in computer games, but not as a model. If someone made copies of the banblade as a model then they could lose the IP protection if they did not do anything.

E.G. If a company make a racing game with a car that looks like a Zonda but called it a "Superwedge GT" people would not sudenly be able to make a copy of the Zonda.

Electro wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
I thought companies risked losing their IP though if they don't protect it well enough. Or something - I can't say I'm an expert.

I'm not IP expert (My area is more finance and contract law, as an accountant rather than a lawyer) but from my understanding that would only realy apply to someone in direct competiton. So, if they are aware of this they could lose the right to exclusive use of the banblade shape in computer games, but not as a model. If someone made copies of the banblade as a model then they could lose the IP protection if they did not do anything.

E.G. If a company make a racing game with a car that looks like a Zonda but called it a "Superwedge GT" people would not sudenly be able to make a copy of the Zonda.

So then shouldn't THQ or Relic sue them, because they might lose exclusive permission to use the Baneblade in a computer game?

Absolutionis wrote:

Electro wrote:From what I understand of the GW lawsuits that have happend they won't do anything. They went after chapterhouse because GW say people were getting confused and chapterhouse started to take the p**s and skirting round names and using GW logos as direct competition. (I'm not wanting to get in to the rights and wrongs of this here. There is other threads for that).

And why did they go after Raging Heroes?

It's hard to mistake this:
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0034/6452/files/lamassu-head-sculpt.jpg?1291119972

For this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v110/BilboBaggins/Warhammer/LordonLammasu1.jpg

...especially considering the GW one had been discontinued for several years.

It's GW strong-arming smaller companies because GW is simply bigger.
They won't do anything because EA is the one that can freely pick on GW's IP with no fear of retaliation.

I'm no White Knight either, but FWIW GW did rerelease their Lammasu at around the time of Storm of Magic's release.

It was still no justification to go after the Raging Heroes one though.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
So then shouldn't THQ or Relic sue them, because they might lose exclusive permission to use the Baneblade in a computer game?

Probably.

O.o


Not that GW needs help with thier army of goose steppers.



And EA? really?




Gobsmashed is the polite way to put it.

Electro wrote:From what I understand of the GW lawsuits that have happend they won't do anything. They went after chapterhouse because GW say people were getting confused and chapterhouse started to take the p**s and skirting round names and using GW logos as direct competition. (I'm not wanting to get in to the rights and wrongs of this here. There is other threads for that).

Except there's a difference between what CH was doing and what EA is doing. CH made GW-compatible parts and used the GW marks to identify that they were useful with GW products.

The copyright case...well, that's a different story. But they didn't directly copy any of GW's works the way EA (apparently) has.

Unit1126PLL wrote:I thought companies risked losing their IP though if they don't protect it well enough. Or something - I can't say I'm an expert.

Trademarks, yes generally. Not so with copyrights (absent some argument from equity).

Grimtuff wrote:I'm no White Knight either, but FWIW GW did rerelease their Lammasu at around the time of Storm of Magic's release.

It was still no justification to go after the Raging Heroes one though.

It's a justification, just not a good one. GW's Lammasu sucks.

infinite_array wrote:Anyway, it's as Silver said. GW would never go up against a company as large as EA with their own legion of lawyers. Hell, they can barely make a case against a much smaller company.

Just to respond to this point (that others have made as well), legal proceedings aren't rugby (as much as I sometimes wish it was...). You don't automatically win by having a better team or tougher lawyers. GW's case against EA would be much stronger than their case against Chapterhouse.

Admittedly, that's assuming competence, which may or may not* exist.

* more likely the latter than the former

biccat wrote:stuff

Well, since you're here - In your opinion, do you think they would, all things being equal; prevail? That GWS has a legitimate case? Or is it too fungible to weigh in?

Why does anyone in the general public care one way or another if a company like EA makes something that is or is not a direct copy of something GW makes.

In what manner does it impact any of our lives?

If EA's actions annoy you, then take your computer game dollar to another manufacturer.

Saldiven wrote:Why does anyone in the general public care one way or another if a company like EA makes something that is or is not a direct copy of something GW makes.

In what manner does it impact any of our lives?

If EA's actions annoy you, then take your computer game dollar to another manufacturer.

because if you don't defend your ip like a rabid dog then you can't prove you have control over it and lose it

see: xerox, heroin, aspirin,dry ice, llinoleum, petrol, yo-yo, zipper, band-aid, biro, chap-stick, crock-crockpot, dumpster, hoover, jacuzzi and many more

*note i'm not an IP lawyer so I may of gotten mixed up

Ouze wrote:I also am in the infringement camp. Both of the images posted are pretty damning, in my lay opinion. I have a hard time with the "historical influences" argument, especially for the bonecruncha. Regretfully, but righteously, we must turn the wheel, let the hammer slam into the hull, and....

RELEASE THE IPQUISITION!

Did you not see the date? 1995 makes it historical!

The more I think about this, the more I think that these will not be in the final release. The whole point of these previews is to make GW sue EA. That is what EA wants. EA has caught both flack and praise recently for "creative marketing," ranging from the faux protests over Dante's Inferno, to forging polls to make it seem like the reasons for ME3 tanking had to do with homophobia rather than a bad ending. This is more of the same.

How many of us had heard of this game until the 40K forgeries were posted. None of us. Now a large portion of the internet table top community (who coincidentally, tend to like MMOs) knows about the game. GW will be forced to sue to protect their IP. Once it makes the news that there is a new EA scandal, it will make it's way onto all of the major video gaming news sites and blogs, and the video gamers will know that there is a CnC MMO on the way. EA will pull the designs from the game, and settle out of court with GW for a small amount. In the mean time, they will have generated an inordinate amount of publicity for the cost of a settlement with GW. This rage and hoopla is what EA wants, because within a month or two of the settlement, everyone will have forgotten the rip-offs and the lawsuit, but everyone will remember that there is a CnC MMO.

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote:stuff

Well, since you're here - In your opinion, do you think they would, all things being equal; prevail? That GWS has a legitimate case? Or is it too fungible to weigh in?

If I were advising GW, I would suggest that they should begin investigating whether it makes sense, from a business perspective, to pursue legal action against EA.

It is very possible this is just a lazy graphic artist slipping in some non-originalw orks to a project and no one at EA who matters even realizes it.

Hence why C&D letters exist, as a nice way of letting EA know 'something' is possibly wrong and give them a chance to do something about it. It would be pretty easy for EA to fire someone, remove the models and replace them with a different tank with no need for a big fight.

Now if EA responds with, "yeah? so what? what you gonna do about it?" then it is up to GW to decide if it is worth thier time and money to actually do something about it, but i assume EA doesn't want to knowingly infringe because that then makes EA's properties harder to defend down the road.

http://kotaku.com/5901275/has-ea-been-caught-stealing-designs-from-a-tabletop-game

FM Ninja 048 wrote:

Saldiven wrote:Why does anyone in the general public care one way or another if a company like EA makes something that is or is not a direct copy of something GW makes.

In what manner does it impact any of our lives?

If EA's actions annoy you, then take your computer game dollar to another manufacturer.

because if you don't defend your ip like a rabid dog then you can't prove you have control over it and lose it

Is it your IP? No, it's GW's IP.

So, again, why do YOU care whether or not some other company may or may not be infringing up GW's IP? It has absolutely no effect on your life, whatsoever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nectarprime wrote:http://kotaku.com/5901275/has-ea-been-caught-stealing-designs-from-a-tabletop-game

So what?

If you don't like EA, don't buy their games.

Speak with your wallet.

A little Elephant in the room has surfaced on Warseer.

From Straightsilver:

OK, this is all a little bit complicated but I don't think EA are actually in the wrong here.

The reason being that in 1997 a computer games publisher called SSI produced a 40K / Epic turn based strategy game called "Final Liberation (epic Warhammer 40,000)".

This game used all of the epic designs available at the time, including the 2 above.

SSI as a company was bought out by UBIsoft in 2001, and then EA bought up 20% of UBIsoft in 2004.

Therefore EA may well own the rights to the models produced for 40K LIberation, and have simply re-used them inadvertently in this new CnC game.

Obviously there is the issue as to whether SSI produced 40K LIberation under license, or whether they owned the rights fully, but technically speaking EA has already used these models in a previous game, so it could be a bit of a grey area.

I forgot about this game, now this muddies the waters a bit does it not?

Saldiven wrote:
So, again, why do YOU care whether or not some other company may or may not be infringing up GW's IP? It has absolutely no effect on your life, whatsoever.

yes it does, if GW don't defend their IP then theyt could lose it, resutling in no more 40k/fantasy.

Oh man, I loved Final Liberation. Right up until it froze up. Every time. Usually with some ork weapon.

FM Ninja 048 wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
So, again, why do YOU care whether or not some other company may or may not be infringing up GW's IP? It has absolutely no effect on your life, whatsoever.

yes it does, if GW don't defend their IP then theyt could lose it, resutling in no more 40k/fantasy.

And you learned that while getting your law degree from which school?

i am suprised the Scrooper isn't on there too, it looks like the current Baneblade with a front-end loader bucket on it.

Grimtuff wrote:A little Elephant in the room has surfaced on Warseer.

From Straightsilver:

OK, this is all a little bit complicated but I don't think EA are actually in the wrong here.

The reason being that in 1997 a computer games publisher called SSI produced a 40K / Epic turn based strategy game called "Final Liberation (epic Warhammer 40,000)".

This game used all of the epic designs available at the time, including the 2 above.

SSI as a company was bought out by UBIsoft in 2001, and then EA bought up 20% of UBIsoft in 2004.

Therefore EA may well own the rights to the models produced for 40K LIberation, and have simply re-used them inadvertently in this new CnC game.

Obviously there is the issue as to whether SSI produced 40K LIberation under license, or whether they owned the rights fully, but technically speaking EA has already used these models in a previous game, so it could be a bit of a grey area.

I forgot about this game, now this muddies the waters a bit does it not?

Yes. Yes it does.

I was swaying towards GW after seeing the orc vehicle. I would let the baneblade slide because I stil, think while the two look very similar, tanks is tanks. But the orc vehicle is damning.

But as Saldiven said, what the feth does it matter to anyone if EA are horking GW's IP?

The argument that "We may not have 40K or WHFB if GW do not vigorously defend their IP" is frankly, stupid.

Its the same thing as saying "If GW do not continue to steal everyones ideas and claim them as their own orginal ideas and sue anyone who disagrees, then we will lose 40K and WHFB" and if that is the case, then good riddance to bad rubbish.

FM Ninja 048 wrote:yes it does, if GW don't defend their IP then theyt could lose it, resutling in no more 40k/fantasy.

It could, but in this case it really doesn't mean this.

Grimtuff wrote:I forgot about this game, now this muddies the waters a bit does it not?

Depends on what the licensing agreement says.

AlexHolker wrote:There's a thought: could THQ/Relic sue, on the grounds that it is their (exclusive?) licence to make 40k computer games that is being infringed upon?

Maybe they and GW would like to sue EA but neither want to be the one to front up the money to do it. Both probably have a case but perhaps they would rather the other party pay for it...

Saldiven wrote:So what?

If you don't like EA, don't buy their games.

Speak with your wallet.

The problem with EA is that it's a plague. It won't just sit there and ruin its own franchises, it will buy out franchises and studios you like. Neither Command and Conquer nor Mass Effect were EA games when the franchises started, but now look at what's been done to them.

AlexHolker wrote:

Saldiven wrote:So what?

If you don't like EA, don't buy their games.

Speak with your wallet.

The problem with EA is that it's a plague. It won't just sit there and ruin its own franchises, it will buy out franchises and studios you like. Neither Command and Conquer nor Mass Effect were EA games when the franchises started, but now look at what's been done to them.

To that extent, I can't think of a single EA game that was originally an EA game. Even the early games that come to mind were just twisted mockeries of what used to be Origin.

Okay, just looked. Bard's Tale, which was pretty classic.

AlexHolker wrote:

Saldiven wrote:So what?

If you don't like EA, don't buy their games.

Speak with your wallet.

The problem with EA is that it's a plague. It won't just sit there and ruin its own franchises, it will buy out franchises and studios you like. Neither Command and Conquer nor Mass Effect were EA games when the franchises started, but now look at what's been done to them.

Oh, God! The humanity! How can life go on?

Seriously. If you don't like what they're doing, don't buy their stuff. Starting petitions like the one in the OP is a largely meaningless exercise in time wasting, especially since it is likely based in misapprehension of the actual situation. It might make someone feel better; make them feel like they're "doing something." Unfortunately, that "something" is far less effective than just not buying their stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hellfury wrote:Its the same thing as saying "If GW do not continue to steal everyones ideas and claim them as their own orginal ideas and sue anyone who disagrees, then we will lose 40K and WHFB" and if that is the case, then good riddance to bad rubbish.

Pure genius.

I wonder what would happen if GW stole the CnC Orca fighter... (Valkayrie?) or if GW stole almost every term from Dune (Lasgun, Navigator, Emperor, Harkon(ian)*Warhawks, ect.) Wasn't heavily inspired by the Lord of the Rings, (Orks, Elves, ect.), Star Wars, Star Trekk, ect. The Matrix... seriously Matt Ward, how could you be so creatively bankrupt to rob the matrix for the Grey Knights?! you already had the penitent engine! (You get the point).

Anyway,

My assumption would be that our 40k would not exist... and obviously if CnC cannot think beyond its already inginous designs of tanks from the earlier years, its clear that EA's Adeptus Mechanicus is a failing think tank that is quickly drying up to seek copies of GW's ingenuity. I seriously hope that GW borrows more from the CnC series, it would do them good if they don't get sued for it, they after all would deserve the extra STC's.

DemetriDominov wrote:I wonder what would happen if GW stole the CnC Orca fighter... (Valkayrie?) or if GW stole almost every term from Dune (Lasgun, Navigator, Emperor, Harkon(ian)*Warhawks, ect.) Wasn't heavily inspired by the Lord of the Rings, (Orks, Elves, ect.), Star Wars, Star Trekk, ect. The Matrix... seriously Matt Ward, how could you be so creatively bankrupt to rob the matrix for the Grey Knights?! you already had the penitent engine! (You get the point).

Sir, I hate to tell you this, but your ignorance is showing again. For one thing, common words like "Navigator", "Emperor" and so on? Impossible to make a case for IP infringement. There's an endless variety of media that uses them. Did you know, for example, that the last Galactic Emperor, mentioned the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, was encased in a stasis field at the point of his death and the galaxy is ruled in his stead by a succession of bureaucrats? Sound familiar yet?

Also, this is an Orca: http://www.gamer.ru/system/attached_images/images/000/464/670/original/Orca1.1.png?1323701175
This is a Valkyrie: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_VbB1uRVgs8g/SY4Y01cHs6I/AAAAAAAACWI/AaKAZ0daX_M/s1600/IG%2BValkyrie%2Bcopy.jpg

Are you honestly going to sit there, sir, and tell me one is a carbon copy of the other? Inspired, maybe, who knows. But inspiration is not infringement. Inspiration is the lifeblood of culture and society, and the efforts to cast it in a bad light are misguided.

Consider the Valkyrie. What are its creative ancestors? Immediately, when we look at the side doors complete with door gunners, one is reminded of transport helicopters the likes of which you might see in any Vietnam war film. The two man cockpit is inspired by a very similar construction of the iconic Apache helicopter gunship. A quick Google search reveals a lot of different designs for aircraft-mounted rocket pods, some of which are not entirely dissimilar from the ones GW designed for their model. The list goes on and on, but I trust I have already made my case: the creative pedigree of GW's models is more complex than just claiming they've been lifted outright.

Now, with the Navigators you've hit closer to your mark, which is what happens when you use a flamethrower, I suppose. I'm not saying 80s Games Workshop didn't play it fast and loose with their inspiration and often with satirical intent, but frankly, that was the 1980s for you. Going back and criticizing them now about it is a bit too late, and it's doubtful their actions would be actionable in court, either. Just because the Adeptus Arbites are thematically very close to Judge Dredd doesn't mean there's a case to be made for IP infringement.

Maybe GW don't really mind because EA have their fantasy license and it might be a bit awkward Alienating the largest Videogame company in the world.

I know THQ handle 40k, but things can change.

In saying that I hope things don't change because THQ are fantastic and EA are just a disgusting business.

biccat is correct.

1. Trademarks are different to copyright. Trademarks need to be defended, copyright doesn't. This is a possible case of copyright not trademarks.

2. The putative licence for 40K vehicles in a game might have applied to vehicles in a 40K game, not 40K vehicles anywhere. Also it might not have descended to EA.

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Sir, I hate to tell you this, but your ignorance is showing again. For one thing, common words like "Navigator", "Emperor" and so on? Impossible to make a case for IP infringement. There's an endless variety of media that uses them. Did you know, for example, that the last Galactic Emperor, mentioned the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series, was encased in a stasis field at the point of his death and the galaxy is ruled in his stead by a succession of bureaucrats? Sound familiar yet?

This is basically the beginnings of the arugement of Blizzard's inspiration for Starcraft and Warcraft, same material - rearranged and repainted. You sir, need to take a closer look at my argument, it's congruent with yours, saying that our beloved GW would not exist had it not drawn heavy inspiration from other genres. If you had read Dune, you would have seen that the terms I mentioned aren't just common words portrayed strikingly similar to how they are in the 40k lore, they are literally the same in some cases. Or that Caidan's look like Starship Troopers with shoulder pads and skirts, Storm Troopers are Storm Troopers, Horus personifies Lucifer, and Necrons are Terminators, the list goes on literally endlessly.

So again, clearly EA crossed the line by photo-shopping GW's workshop's material without paying any homage or royalties to it. I think Medium of Death's argument is especially valid since GW once had a vested interest with the gaming giant and lack the funds to properly defend against such a legal giant. It would be interesting indeed to see if the same held true going in the opposite direction. The Tau already have battlesuit and tank mounted Ion Cannons after all.

Finland huh..... I was wondering why you were so cordial with me verg....

The sight of GW being unable to attack EA in the courts because of the size difference gives me a frisson of schadenfreude.

Nvm...

If this brings us an updated version of FINAL LIBERATION - great!

Alpharius wrote:If this brings us an updated version of FINAL LIBERATION - great!

Yeah, maybe this time we'll actually get the armies that are shown in the game.

"The artwork was internal EA concept art that was unintentionally released publicly," an EA rep told Gamespot.
"No Warhammer 40,000 tanks have ever made an appearance in Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances, and never will."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116787-EA-Explains-Warhammer-40K-Tanks-in-C-C-Concept-Art

Cyrax wrote:

"The artwork was internal EA concept art that was unintentionally released publicly," an EA rep told Gamespot.
"No Warhammer 40,000 tanks have ever made an appearance in Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances, and never will."

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116787-EA-Explains-Warhammer-40K-Tanks-in-C-C-Concept-Art

Huh...GW has a strong relationship with EA.

I guess its true what they say - Birds of a feather flock together.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Huh...GW has a strong relationship with EA.

I guess its true what they say - Birds of a feather flock together.

You mean like this?

Cyrax wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Huh...GW has a strong relationship with EA.

I guess its true what they say - Birds of a feather flock together.

You mean like this?

Spoiler:

Yep, that sounds about right xD

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yeah, maybe this time we'll actually get the armies that are shown in the game.

I'm sorry, I never got to play Final Liberation - could you elaborate, please?

daedalus wrote: To that extent, I can't think of a single EA game that was originally an EA game. Even the early games that come to mind were just twisted mockeries of what used to be Origin.

Okay, just looked. Bard's Tale, which was pretty classic.

Wing Commander..... I MISS MY WING COMMANDER! Damn you EA Damn you to hell! *runs away crying*

Dysartes wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Yeah, maybe this time we'll actually get the armies that are shown in the game.

I'm sorry, I never got to play Final Liberation - could you elaborate, please?

In the race selection menu, you have a choice of IG, Orks, SM, Tyranids and Eldar.
However, they never finished Tyranids and Eldar before release, so you can't actually play them.
They are just in the encyclopedia of available races and units...even though they do not have any units made for them, nor are they available.

Now this really annoys me; an unfinished game that they expect you pay for pisses me off. I don't mind them being present in an expansion pack, but I do mind being taunted by their incompetence to release a whole game.

There's also technical issues. Videos don't work on modern systems, and you are lucking to get sound. This is a problem that I found with all the old Warhammer computer games; they don't age well compared to other games that were released in the same decade.

To be fair, the listings for Chaos, Tyranids and Eldar weren't in the race selection screen, they were in the encyclopaedia. You couldn't start a skirmish game and then select any of those five only to find that two of them have armies and the rest didn't. Their inclusion was just information for people who were interested. Everyone assumed that there would be expansions... but there weren't any.

EA wrote:"The artwork was internal EA concept art that was unintentionally released publicly," an EA rep told Gamespot.
"No Warhammer 40,000 tanks have ever made an appearance in Command and Conquer: Tiberium Alliances, and never will."
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116787-EA-Explains-Warhammer-40K-Tanks-in-C-C-Concept-Art

Then what about the Baneblade appearing in this screenshot?

There are others too, but that's all I could find a moment's notice.

EA and GW worked together to produce Space Hulk years ago so they've had some association for a while.

DemetriDominov wrote:
This is basically the beginnings of the arugement of Blizzard's inspiration for Starcraft and Warcraft, same material - rearranged and repainted. You sir, need to take a closer look at my argument, it's congruent with yours, saying that our beloved GW would not exist had it not drawn heavy inspiration from other genres. If you had read Dune, you would have seen that the terms I mentioned aren't just common words portrayed strikingly similar to how they are in the 40k lore, they are literally the same in some cases. Or that Caidan's look like Starship Troopers with shoulder pads and skirts, Storm Troopers are Storm Troopers, Horus personifies Lucifer, and Necrons are Terminators, the list goes on literally endlessly.

This comes back to 'there is nothing new under the sun'. Cadians look like any generic sci-fi trooper (or most modern troopers, and a variety of IG units look like historical soldiers). Necrons are probably one of the more original things GW has created (undead egyptian ROBOTS IN SPACE). Storm Troopers are special ops forces and inspiration is obviously drawn from *real life* Stoßtruppen. Take any single idea and you will find a hundred examples of it being done before. The argument that GW would not exist without drawing on outside influences is moot - neither would anything else, including Dune or StarWars.
GW has taken each of those ideas (ideas are not protectable under copyright law) and created their own interpretation of it (which is protectable).

Trasvi, Necrons might be getting to being original now, with the Egyptian influence, but they started off as Terminators/Cybermen.

The first necron lord model (2nd ed, apparently) would like a word with you

When did they drop the 'I'll be back!' rule?

Howard A Treesong wrote:When did they drop the 'I'll be back!' rule?

5th ed codex.
"We'll be back" was replaced with "Reanimation Protocols".

Something about stones and glass houses and all that.

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2130407a_99120207017_Vargheists01_445x319.jpg

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2130402a_99120207017_CryptHorror01_445x319.jpg

http://www.ladymoiraine.com/forum/gallery/8/medium_3_15_05_11_2_20_11_8900313.jpeg

My appologies for the bad screenshot, but anyone who has played the Witcher can testify to the similarites between the two (or three depending on how you count it)

I heard Ford made a car that looked like a Chevy.

Why isn't that in the news?

Perhaps because Ford didn't try to sue Hyundai for making a car that looked like a Chevy.

Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps because Ford didn't try to sue Hyundai for making a car that looked like a Chevy.

In all of these discussions about intellectual property rights, this is perhaps the most wonderfully succinct summation to date.

Emerett wrote:I heard Ford made a car that looked like a Chevy.

Why isn't that in the news?

Because you're not on a car website. The only people who know (or care) about this are GW or EA fanboys or black knights.

Car companies do care about design copying, which is why they spend millions of dollars annually to protect their IP.

biccat wrote:The only people who know (or care) about this are fanboys or black knights.

Why are we a GW fanboys or black knights (wtf?) if we are interested in a case about copyright infringement against GW? In the Chapterhouse thread, many of us seem to be on Chapterhouse's side. In this thread many of us are on GW's side. Are you going to start calling us fanknights or something? Did you stop to think that perhaps many of us are simply reasonable people who can differenciate between actual infringement by EA and overreaching regarding Chapterhouse by GW when it happens?

Who Cares? it's not like any court winnings would be reflected in anyway to the customer, if you're that bothered, don't buy the game?

It is not enough to defeat our enemies! We must crush them utterly to total annihilation, burn their digital libraries, raise their studios, pulverize their very bones, and then salt all of EA so that nothing can ever grow there again.

Honestly.. what is so debatable here? I agree with SamsStuff... unless GW loses a court case and then is counter sued for damages we probably won't see anything change.