-=Title Edited - The original title was unnecessarily inflammatory - Lorek=-

So I tried getting some custom dice done with the Alaitoc symbol as the 6 and after a few emails back and forth I get this:

> Hello again,
>
> Are these designs from Games Workshop? We were contacted early in the
> year by a lawyer representing Games Workshop and were warned against
> using their designs for our custom work. It looks like that design is
> for an Eldar faction from Warhammer 40k. Is this the case?
>
> Joseph Kogin
> Chessex Manufacturing


I'm just waiting for GW to go after tattoo artists now at this rate.

A few people have posted about dice companies not cutting dice with GW's designs which is fair enough as far as I am concerned.

A sword through a rune is generic enough. I can't imagine they're going to be able to capture so much detail that it would look like anything more than the basic outline of the symbol.

I'm not seeing the problem here. GW have every right to stop unlicensed third parties from using their artwork.

I'm gonna side with GW on this one. It's a pretty specific symbol, and it's definitely their IP.

It sucks for us as consumers, but this is pretty run of the mill stuff, not unusually dickish.

Just in case Chessex are just covering their own base, you could always try saying "no, they are not GW symbols". I think GW IP lawyering gets a tad more difficult when Chessex can say "we contacted the customer about the matter and were assured they were not GW copyright - as we cannot check every copyright ourselves, you need to ask the customer about further details."

Yeah it's a bit difficult situation, when thinking about the copyright law. Technically, you are allowed to produce copies for personal use, but not for sale. The Chessex produces the dice for you, but it's a custom order for personal use, and the image is supplied by you. The copyright holder HAS the only right to make copies, but then again, there are some "fair use" clauses that state that the manufactured copy must have reasonable commercial value - and that value rests in the ability to commercially sell the product. Hence, a custom copy that cannot be publicly sold (cannot due to the right of first sale by the copyright owner) can be argued to have little value and be "fair use / personal use", etc...

I would agree with prowla-- its a legal out.

Tell Chessex its an "artists rendition" of an Astrological sign.

Gw can take a flying leap...trademark symbols that have been around since cavemen were drawing on walls...pff!

dere wrote:A sword through a rune is generic enough I can't imagine they're going to be able to capture so much detail that it would look like anything more than the basic outline of the symbol.

It is specific enough when it is a sword through the rune for an Eldar craftworld, regardless of scale.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It is specific enough when it is a sword through the rune for an Eldar craftworld, regardless of scale.

It's not a sword through the rune for an Eldar craftworld, the rune itself is little more than a sword crossing a crescent moon. And if GW thinks they can trademark a 500 year old religious symbol, they're insane.

If you had asked them to print a warmachine or a Dystopian wars emblem on the dice you would have gotten the same email with GW replaced with Privateer press or Spartan Games.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

dere wrote:A sword through a rune is generic enough. I can't imagine they're going to be able to capture so much detail that it would look like anything more than the basic outline of the symbol.

It is specific enough when it is a sword through the rune for an Eldar craftworld, regardless of scale.

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that they should copy it directly, I'm saying that it's a such a generic concept that if they won't reproduce the art he provided directly, small changes are all that would be needed. You can't really say that a sword piercing the moon is a symbol unique to GW.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It is specific enough when it is a sword through the rune for an Eldar craftworld, regardless of scale.

It's not a sword through the rune for an Eldar craftworld, the rune itself is little more than a sword crossing a crescent moon. And if GW thinks they can trademark a 500 year old religious symbol, they're insane.

However the specific design he asked the dice people to use is one produced by gw. You seem to be suggesting that i should be able to use coca cola's logo however I want since it is just writing - after all that has been around for thousands of years!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 derek wrote:


You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying that they should copy it directly, I'm saying that it's a such a generic concept that if they won't reproduce the art he provided directly, small changes are all that would be needed. You can't really say that a sword piercing the moon is a symbol unique to GW.

A sword through a moon/rune can be generic, certainly but will be costly to back if gw challanges. Especially if the company has used thei ip in the past and especially if they have been given previous warning over infringement. Being smart assed to skirt on these kinds of issues is begging for trouble.

And given the op apparently asked the dice company to use the gw image there is nothing wrong with the reply given.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It is specific enough when it is a sword through the rune for an Eldar craftworld, regardless of scale.

It's not a sword through the rune for an Eldar craftworld, the rune itself is little more than a sword crossing a crescent moon. And if GW thinks they can trademark a 500 year old religious symbol, they're insane.

However the specific design he asked the dice people to use is one produced by gw. You seem to be suggesting that i should be able to use coca cola's logo however I want since it is just writing - after all that has been around for thousands of years!

No, I am suggesting that GW has no right to tell you you're not allowed to put a crucifix on your dice.

It's also not impossible that GW would go after an individual that acted like this IF Chessex believed them and made the dice

Even if in the end the case collapsed (like some of the cases the music industry brought against individuals) it would be enough to ruin your life

 AlexHolker wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It is specific enough when it is a sword through the rune for an Eldar craftworld, regardless of scale.

It's not a sword through the rune for an Eldar craftworld, the rune itself is little more than a sword crossing a crescent moon. And if GW thinks they can trademark a 500 year old religious symbol, they're insane.

However the specific design he asked the dice people to use is one produced by gw. You seem to be suggesting that i should be able to use coca cola's logo however I want since it is just writing - after all that has been around for thousands of years!

No, I am suggesting that GW has no right to tell you you're not allowed to put a crucifix on your dice.

You are right, they dont have the right to tell you you cant put a design they dont own the ip on your dice. However they can certainly tell you to not put a design they do own on your dice and i would understand if they were not happy if you put something that is clearly meant to be one of their designs on your dice...

 SilverMK2 wrote:
You are right, they dont have the right to tell you you cant put a design they dont own the ip on your dice. However they can certainly tell you to not put a design they do own on your dice and i would understand if they were not happy if you put something that is clearly meant to be one of their designs on your dice...

They do not own this design. They got their asses kicked just trying to steal the phrase "Space Marine". Can you imagine what would happen if they tried to rob a religion with 26 million followers? There wouldn't be enough left of them to fill a thimble.

Well this is new, I know many veteran players who use custom dice with GW symbols.

This pretty much destroyed my plans for eldar dice.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
You are right, they dont have the right to tell you you cant put a design they dont own the ip on your dice. However they can certainly tell you to not put a design they do own on your dice and i would understand if they were not happy if you put something that is clearly meant to be one of their designs on your dice...

They do not own this design. They got their asses kicked just trying to steal the phrase "Space Marine". Can you imagine what would happen if they tried to rob a religion with 26 million followers? There wouldn't be enough left of them to fill a thimble.

Im not sure which religion has an eldar craftworld symbol for their symbol but that might be a religion i could get into...

But since you apparently cant grasp how ip works and i am on my phone im not going to spell it out for you any further than i already have.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
You are right, they dont have the right to tell you you cant put a design they dont own the ip on your dice. However they can certainly tell you to not put a design they do own on your dice and i would understand if they were not happy if you put something that is clearly meant to be one of their designs on your dice...

They do not own this design. They got their asses kicked just trying to steal the phrase "Space Marine". Can you imagine what would happen if they tried to rob a religion with 26 million followers? There wouldn't be enough left of them to fill a thimble.

You evidently don't understand how IP law works. Just saying.

 MRPYM wrote:
Well this is new, I know many veteran players who use custom dice with GW symbols.

This pretty much destroyed my plans for eldar dice.

Yeah, this has only been going on for a few months. You can always get a blank face dice, or onr with part of the design cut in the engrave the rest yourself.

My own craftworld icon could probably not be recognised if you took out just one line on it, which would be easy to engrave.

I can't blame GW for it, or at the very least Chessex for wanting to play it as safely as possible. Dice with a skull, omega, or star on them are generic enough, but once you start getting to GW's iconography that can get legally murky. Even if Chessex were to win that court case, that's a lot of time, money, and drama they don't want to deal with, so it's best to avoid it altogether.

I think we should ask ourselves, why now?

For quite a few years GW knew about the custom dice but in the past never did anything about it.

100% of 'custom design printing' shops for everything from tee-shirts to birthday cakes always ask: "Do you own the copyrights to this art you are reproducing?" Chessex is just giving themselves an out and will be able to testify against you, the lying customer should they make the product and GW pursues them.

GW was proactive and said "Hey, don't reproduce our artwork on your dice." so Chessex is 'aware' when they see things which look GW.

Trying to claim the Alaitoc symbol is generic is ignorant and trying to say the 'autobots' symbol is a generic tribal face.

There is nothing to see here. If a vendor senses something is copyrighted, they are smart to pass on your business.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm gonna side with GW on this one. It's a pretty specific symbol, and it's definitely their IP.

It sucks for us as consumers, but this is pretty run of the mill stuff, not unusually dickish.

That's the thing though, a lot of GWs "symbols" are straight up stolen from other sources and claimed as their own. And really when it comes to custom art, murals, tattoos or airbrushing its always been a non issue for 99% of companies, I don't see Disney suing every artist that painted Mickey Mouse on something for a couple bucks. Its dickish to me because its just another case of GW attacking smaller fish because it can probably win.

For example according to GW they own the chemical symbol for Sulfur and a few other of these "eldar symbols":

And in context they do. That's what you're not understanding about copyrights/trademarks. The context they're used in is absolutely relevant - and in fact is pretty much the deciding factor.

rigeld2 wrote:
And in context they do. That's what you're not understanding about copyrights/trademarks. The context they're used in is absolutely relevant - and in fact is pretty much the deciding factor.

See, what you're not understanding though is that the symbol is stolen from something else to begin with and they are claiming it as their own, which makes it fair game.

 MRPYM wrote:
I think we should ask ourselves, why now?

For quite a few years GW knew about the custom dice but in the past never did anything about it.

Hence the thread, I've seen dozens of people with custom dice with GWs symbols for years, why the problem now? Other then to say "we have a legal team!!!1!1"

And really who is the loser that reports this stuff to GW?

Were they chessex dice though?

Also what wargames have GW stolen these symbols from?

If you really are that intent on having Eldar dice, find another less scrupulous company and get on with your life.

 notprop wrote:
Were they chessex dice though?

Also what wargames have GW stolen these symbols from?

If you really are that intent on having Eldar dice, find another less scrupulous company and get on with your life.

I asked the guys where they got their dice and they all say chessex.

All the custom dice Ive seen have been through chessex, its actually where I got the idea from in the first place.

And GW haven't stolen the images from other wargames, but rather from religious, scientific and historical writings.

For example, GW went after chapter house for using the Omega symbol, upside down or not, nobody owns it.

In the case of copyright/trademark images it comes down to the artistic rights to the image. You can slightly change the image but as long as it holds enough likeness to the original it is a infringement on the copyright/trademark. You can claim a image has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years but as long as someone or a company can claim artistic rights to it, then in all intent and purpose they hold legal rights to it.

Chessex is a company that has been around long enough to understand this, and they don't want to deal with any legal ramifications from Games Workshop Yes it could turn the way of Chapter House v. Games Workshop and become a overall loss to Games Workshop (which also opened up what can and can't be used.) Yes some images will be harder for them to produce but if you are looking to produce the Blood Drop for your Blood Angels there is nothing Games Workshop can do about it.

Just in case anyone was wandering about the tattoo part of it all, no they can't control that because as a tattoo artist you can always claim that you are charging for the time and not the image.

Front page of all the newspapers tomorrow - "Lawyers in throwing mud to see if it sticks shocker!"

1. Buy blank dice in the color of your choice.
2. Laser etch them from a local dealer with the designs of your choice.
3. Fill in the etched design with your own paint.
4. ???
5. Profit.

I guarantee you a local laser shop won't give a damn about what you put on your dice or where it comes from, especially if you are paying cash.

 Aerethan wrote:
1. Buy blank dice in the color of your choice.
2. Laser etch them from a local dealer with the designs of your choice.
3. Fill in the etched design with your own paint.
4. ???
5. Profit.

I guarantee you a local laser shop won't give a damn about what you put on your dice or where it comes from, especially if you are paying cash.

Seems like a great work-around plus you're supporting a local business.

Someone mentioned that GW 'own' them in 'context', but what is the context? GW make miniatures for war games. I imagine they could argue that they 'own' these symbols on miniatures, but on dice, which are a generic product for all sorts of toys and games, and even to things like divination and just random number generation purposes, is surely stretching GW's context to the limit.

GW asking that other companies don't print things like 'Warhammer' or the 40K eagle symbol on dice is fair enough IMO, those are clear trademarks which their artists designed the form and typeface for. But if they were to claim symbols they've just looted from historic texts then that's simple IP bullying yet again. This isn't a rival miniatures company, they're making dice, 'context' is a stretch even if GW do own these symbols. And their very occasional use of these symbols with various Eldar factions doesn't seem to give their claim enough substance anyway.

We don't know what GW have in mind when making this request for Chessex. GW like making demands without being clear. Could they furnish Chessex with a list of designs they consider to own? It doesn't seem fair to say 'don't use our designs' if they don't then tell you what those designs are. Even after the Chapterhouse case they still claim the Chaos Star on their copyright page. What should Chessex do if someone asked for that to be printed on a die and GW said 'stop'? Because then there's the risk of a legal battle that will cost Chessex even though GW's claim would be illegitimate. The person with the most money can bully others into submission. That's how many industries work, that's how GW work.

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not seeing the problem here. GW have every right to stop unlicensed third parties from using their artwork.

It depends on what is "GW's artwork".

The Alaitoc symbol is a cogwheel with two cogs extended to follow the shape of a sword symbol placed over it, and a crescent moon over all.

If it expresses originality of art, then it is worthy of protections, the same as anyone else's original work.

OTOH if it has strong similarities to other works, then perhaps it is not original enough to be worthy of protection.

It would need an art historian to research this point. I can't help feeling it is too trivial to be worth the time.

Secondly, GW will probably claim trademark status for the Alaitoc symbol, which means it doesn't need to be original.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
A few people have posted about dice companies not cutting dice with GW's designs which is fair enough as far as I am concerned.

Can't see a pic. Is it arrows, skulls or Roman numbers? Because GW claims to have invented those.

From Lexicanum.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


From Lexicanum.

Also thr first image that comes up when you google alaitoc - was going to post it earlier but my phone kept on posting thr url in the middle of text for some reason and it was too much of a pita to change it around.

So yeah, it is a distinct and identifiable design rather than just a skull or something.

Ediy - and im sure people know i am not the biggest fanof gw and never go ouy of my way to defend them...

For all I know, they could have sued for these:

Or maybe they think they invented dice now

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Alaitoc symbol is a cogwheel with two cogs extended to follow the shape of a sword symbol placed over it, and a crescent moon over all.

If it expresses originality of art, then it is worthy of protections, the same as anyone else's original work.

OTOH if it has strong similarities to other works, then perhaps it is not original enough to be worthy of protection.

It would need an art historian to research this point. I can't help feeling it is too trivial to be worth the time.

Leave the cog off (it's a die so you don't want three layers of detail anyway), and you're not too far off this.

There's another side to this, thinking from GW's point of view. They're knee deep in the legal mire at the moment. As they started stalking the small companies for peanuts, now they sort of need to keep on going and keep staking their ground, all the way. So they are shipping the "GW legal team is watching you!" notifications by the bulk, to anything that might touch their IP - as a sort of pre-cease&desist, just in case something, someday needs actual attention. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd target the tattoo parlors next, lol

There's two questions here: can they legally, and should they keeping PR et al in mind. Another way to look at this is that GW could choose to be a bit more relaxed about it, and be creating a healthy ecosystem of small players around them, encouraging appearance of tons of printed 'fan products' like the Eldar dice in question. It can be a good move marketing-wise, as it boosts their image and presence.

Obviously, going after tiny companies is all bad publicity for GW. Larger companies are a bit more careful about their public image - GW is still a medium-sized player so they might not have the most skilled people, when it comes to this.

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not seeing the problem here. GW have every right to stop unlicensed third parties from using their artwork.

Agreed! This is an overreaction by the OP...

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Alaitoc symbol is a cogwheel with two cogs extended to follow the shape of a sword symbol placed over it, and a crescent moon over all.

If it expresses originality of art, then it is worthy of protections, the same as anyone else's original work.

OTOH if it has strong similarities to other works, then perhaps it is not original enough to be worthy of protection.

It would need an art historian to research this point. I can't help feeling it is too trivial to be worth the time.

Leave the cog off (it's a die so you don't want three layers of detail anyway), and you're not too far off this.

The Rebel Alliance!

I think the design in question is pretty damn stylized, regardless of what other generic symbols it may slightly resemble. I think Chessex is right as I see no wrongdoing by GW here.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Someone mentioned that GW 'own' them in 'context', but what is the context? GW make miniatures for war games. I imagine they could argue that they 'own' these symbols on miniatures, but on dice, which are a generic product for all sorts of toys and games, and even to things like divination and just random number generation purposes, is surely stretching GW's context to the limit.

http://chessex.com/Dice/Custom_Dice_Home.htm
Chessex makes custom dice for gaming. GW owns the mark with respect to gaming. It's not that hard to follow.

And their very occasional use of these symbols with various Eldar factions doesn't seem to give their claim enough substance anyway.

It really does.

 FarseerAndyMan wrote:
I would agree with prowla-- its a legal out.

Tell Chessex its an "artists rendition" of an Astrological sign.

Gw can take a flying leap...trademark symbols that have been around since cavemen were drawing on walls...pff!

No, it isn't a "legal out." The liability, were there any, would rest on the shoulders of the individual actually infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights. e.g. making and distributing copies of the work, selling copies of the work, etc. That would be Chessex.

Chessex has to make a decision about risk. Could one make a "generic" version of the symbol? I think so. Is that symbol a GW trademark? Probably very, very unlikely. So it would come down to copyright. A sword is a generic symbol in the public domain. The combination of a sword and a moon is also probably in the public domain. So there's plenty of room to create differentiation.

But different or no, that has no bearing on whether you wind up getting sued. Is it worth that to do a single custom order?

The answer is no which is why they passed on the job, and well within their rights to not make these custom dice with a logo that may be protected.

weeble1000 wrote:
No, it isn't a "legal out." The liability, were there any, would rest on the shoulders of the individual actually infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights. e.g. making and distributing copies of the work, selling copies of the work, etc. That would be Chessex.

Chessex has to make a decision about risk. Could one make a "generic" version of the symbol? I think so. Is that symbol a GW trademark? Probably very, very unlikely. So it would come down to copyright. A sword is a generic symbol in the public domain. The combination of a sword and a moon is also probably in the public domain. So there's plenty of room to create differentiation.

But different or no, that has no bearing on whether you wind up getting sued. Is it worth that to do a single custom order?

While I agree with what you said in it's totality; I have to ask: is Chessex expected to be aware of every single copyrighted symbol, icon, and design in the world? Is there no safe harbor provision here?

If they're aware, though, they might as well avoid it. They are selling the dice, even if it's just one order.

Presumably if they printed a copyrighted design as a one-off commission and someone like GW found out, all they could do was write and tell them not to do it again for that design. Chessex would then agree not to do it again now that it's been brought to their attention. It's only if you defy a C&D that you risk going to court because you've been warned and chosen to use that design after being made aware by it's 'owner'. Though GW's claim of ownership of some things is decidedly dodgy.

Unless they furnish Chessex with a list of designs before they take orders for designs there's an argument for reasonableness. Many GW symbols are seldom printed and are a bit obscure in their own publications. How is anyone supposed to reasonably know what GW claim as theirs? The two headed imperial eagle is obvious, many of the eldar symbols are not. I'm not familiar with many of them, I know nothing about the symbols in Malufrax and some others, so why would I be expected to be familiar with every copyrighted symbol in existence?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not seeing the problem here. GW have every right to stop unlicensed third parties from using their artwork.

It depends on what is "GW's artwork".

The Alaitoc symbol is a cogwheel with two cogs extended to follow the shape of a sword symbol placed over it, and a crescent moon over all.

If it expresses originality of art, then it is worthy of protections, the same as anyone else's original work.

OTOH if it has strong similarities to other works, then perhaps it is not original enough to be worthy of protection.

It would need an art historian to research this point. I can't help feeling it is too trivial to be worth the time.

Secondly, GW will probably claim trademark status for the Alaitoc symbol, which means it doesn't need to be original.

Heres what I sent, both are different from the "official GW design"

Perhaps you should try a slight variation on those designs -- turn the crescent the other way or something. There must be a point at which your design is different enough to the GW version to be a new piece of original artwork.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps you should try a slight variation on those designs -- turn the crescent the other way or something. There must be a point at which your design is different enough to the GW version to be a new piece of original artwork.

This.

If you changed small things about it you'll be fine. Change proportions like the flare on the blade inside the crescent, change the hilt design a bit, etc.

It's such a basic design that it'd be easy to change and be recognizable as what you want it to be.

So after 10+ years GW now decide to stop Cheesex doning dice with "there" icons. Seem really late and donkey-cave thing to do. Yes atleast ten years as I still have a set from back then. GW only has a right to dice with that design if they can prove the made them first, I count find thous dice. GW lucky Cheesex is a bigish company so likey count get Pro-Bono.

GW new legal plan target company to big for Pro-Bono, but not big enouth to fight in court with there own money.

 Kroothawk wrote:
For all I know, they could have sued for these:

Or maybe they think they invented dice now

Or these



Because we all know GW created dices as we know them.

GW has a copyright on Earth, as it's the planet the emperor is from. Am I doing it right?

 Aerethan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Perhaps you should try a slight variation on those designs -- turn the crescent the other way or something. There must be a point at which your design is different enough to the GW version to be a new piece of original artwork.

This.

If you changed small things about it you'll be fine. Change proportions like the flare on the blade inside the crescent, change the hilt design a bit, etc.

It's such a basic design that it'd be easy to change and be recognizable as what you want it to be.

Well if you look at that black and white pic (its cleaner in the original copy it went screwy here) is a modified version, the tip, pommel and hilt are all different. Its even different from the decal patterns GW makes. I'll try and get it done but at this point its looking like its more trouble then its worth and has only served to increase my discontent for GW and its policies.

Could Games Workshop go after these "Design your own T-shirt!" sites too? Cause I would love to walk into my GW wearing a shirt saying "Space Marine", with an arrow and the Roman numeral 4.

Technically GW could go after anyone that uses their designs for anything.

Years ago I remember hearing GW (when I worked for the company) wanted to start going after commission painters because they are free loading and profiteering on GWs work, but it never saw the light of day. Really in the end it just goes to show you that they are willing to attack anyone they perceive as smaller then them.

If anything all this thread proves is GW really thinks that they own Greek letters, alchemy symbols and religious symbols that are old as time and not only getting away with it, but have convinced people that it is okay do so.

fishy bob wrote:
Could Games Workshop go after these "Design your own T-shirt!" sites too? Cause I would love to walk into my GW wearing a shirt saying "Space Marine", with an arrow and the Roman numeral 4.

Actually, I have a black polo shirt with the Raven Guard chapter symbol on it. IIRC correctly, when I ordered it I had to check a box saying it wasn't copyrighted artwork, that was apparently good enough.

Now, if anyone wanted to take me to court, I'd have to point out that more people have asked me if it was some sort of historic German military symbol than have ever asked if it was anything GW related!

azreal13 wrote:Now, if anyone wanted to take me to court, I'd have to point out that more people have asked me if it was some sort of historic German military symbol than have ever asked if it was anything GW related!

It's definitely not one of GW's original designs (very little of is). Just do a image search for 'heraldry eagle' and the symbol would fit right in.

 prowla wrote:
There's another side to this, thinking from GW's point of view. They're knee deep in the legal mire at the moment. As they started stalking the small companies for peanuts, now they sort of need to keep on going and keep staking their ground, all the way. So they are shipping the "GW legal team is watching you!" notifications by the bulk, to anything that might touch their IP - as a sort of pre-cease&desist, just in case something, someday needs actual attention. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd target the tattoo parlors next, lol

Bear in mind, they said due to earlier warnings to the OP. It's possible they received those warnings quite a while ago, unrelated to the chapterhouse fiasco, and just decided, for them, it wasn't worth fighting. They're a big enough company that losing a few custom dice orders means little.

Noir wrote:
So after 10+ years GW now decide to stop Cheesex doning dice with "there" icons. Seem really late and donkey-cave thing to do. Yes atleast ten years as I still have a set from back then. GW only has a right to dice with that design if they can prove the made them first, I count find thous dice. GW lucky Cheesex is a bigish company so likey count get Pro-Bono.

GW new legal plan target company to big for Pro-Bono, but not big enouth to fight in court with there own money.

Not really. GW's trademarks refer to miniature gaming, and these dice are used for miniature gaming.

Cheesex are in the same position as thousands of companies, for instance photo printing shops who won't print works that they know aren't the customer's copyright.

Who cares. All Chessex rounded corner dice roll horribly anyway. Didnt you guys read the study?

Ravenous D wrote:...

If anything all this thread proves is GW really thinks that they own Greek letters, alchemy symbols and religious symbols that are old as time and not only getting away with it, but have convinced people that it is okay do so.

Really?

The only thing this thread proves is that appearantly you don't like it when a company says no to you and you'll believe anything about GW you read on the Internet.

It is very common for any 'print your own X' shops to get you to sign a disclaimer saying that it is your own copyright on the work. Chessex might be just doing due diligence here because a huge percentage of their business derives from GW players and they know that GW is litigious. But they could have the same issue if you tried to print out Mickey Mouse dice and Disney got word of it.
If they were making money off printing a GW design that you gave them, GW would have a legitimate copyright claim (assuming they own the copyright). If you tell them with a straight face that it is your own design (or sign a document saying that it is) the blame transfers to you.

Some of GW's claimed copyrights might be bogus, but others are legitimate and you need to be careful if you choose to do anything with those.

Chessex also used to supply dice TO GW.
They might still be the makers for their dice and unwilling to jeopardise that contract.

Why would anyone want dice imprinted with something as generic as an Alaitoc rune or a space marine emblem anyway? If you want custom dice, get something that's actually unique and personal.

 Ouze wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
No, it isn't a "legal out." The liability, were there any, would rest on the shoulders of the individual actually infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights. e.g. making and distributing copies of the work, selling copies of the work, etc. That would be Chessex.

Chessex has to make a decision about risk. Could one make a "generic" version of the symbol? I think so. Is that symbol a GW trademark? Probably very, very unlikely. So it would come down to copyright. A sword is a generic symbol in the public domain. The combination of a sword and a moon is also probably in the public domain. So there's plenty of room to create differentiation.

But different or no, that has no bearing on whether you wind up getting sued. Is it worth that to do a single custom order?

While I agree with what you said in it's totality; I have to ask: is Chessex expected to be aware of every single copyrighted symbol, icon, and design in the world? Is there no safe harbor provision here?

No, not at all. Independent creation is absolutely a defense to copyright infringement. One must have access to the work in question in order to copy it, after all. That said, when a work is out there, all a plaintiff must do is demonstrate a prima facie case of substantial similarity and access can be inferred from the similarity of the two works alone. A defendant must rebut an inference of access. So, really, lack of access does not do much when it comes to not being sued in the first place, which I believe is the concern of Chessex.

"I didn't know about it" is a perfectly fine response to allegations of copyright infringement because copyright only protects against copying. It is impossible to copy something unless you have the thing you intend to copy in your custody or control. This is actually a very good way to demonstrate that copyright really is only about copying.

I cannot photocopy something unless I have the original.

Now, when it comes to patent infringement and trademark infringement, lack of knowledge of the asserted property isn't so much a defense. One can infringe a patent unwittingly because patent rights give the inventor the exclusive right to make, use, sell, or offer to sell the patented invention. So if someone makes, uses, sells, or offers to sell the patented invention, it does not matter whether or not that person knew it was patented, exclusive rights have been infringed. It is similar with trademark infringement, although if you didn't know about the mark (assuming it was unregistered), one may presume that the mark is weak or not terribly distinctive.

But at the end of the day, likelihood of confusion is the test for trademark infringement. One can cause a likelihood of confusion unwittingly.

One can create a copy accidentally, but not without knowledge of the asserted work, because copyright only protects against copying, and copying requires that you have the asserted work in your "hands" prior to creating an infringing work of art.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
GW has a copyright on Earth, as it's the planet the emperor is from. Am I doing it right?

Yep. The planet is referred to as "Terra," but we all know "Terra" means "Earth" so they get "Earth" too because, well, you knew exactly what you were doing living on GW's planet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

fishy bob wrote:
Could Games Workshop go after these "Design your own T-shirt!" sites too? Cause I would love to walk into my GW wearing a shirt saying "Space Marine", with an arrow and the Roman numeral 4.

That is hilarious. I am making those shirts now. Hello Cafe Press!

Trasvi wrote:
It is very common for any 'print your own X' shops to get you to sign a disclaimer saying that it is your own copyright on the work. Chessex might be just doing due diligence here because a huge percentage of their business derives from GW players and they know that GW is litigious. But they could have the same issue if you tried to print out Mickey Mouse dice and Disney got word of it.
If they were making money off printing a GW design that you gave them, GW would have a legitimate copyright claim (assuming they own the copyright). If you tell them with a straight face that it is your own design (or sign a document saying that it is) the blame transfers to you.

Some of GW's claimed copyrights might be bogus, but others are legitimate and you need to be careful if you choose to do anything with those.

There's a difference in the Disney scenario compared to the GW one. Disney actually does produce dice with Mickey Mouse Ears on them (I bought some thinking they were cool). So Disney would have a legitimate complaint and issue should a company make dice with MM ears on them. Also, I'm pretty sure the MM ear design has been Disney trademark for decades back to the days of Walt.

 weeble1000 wrote:

fishy bob wrote:
Could Games Workshop go after these "Design your own T-shirt!" sites too? Cause I would love to walk into my GW wearing a shirt saying "Space Marine", with an arrow and the Roman numeral 4.

That is hilarious. I am making those shirts now. Hello Cafe Press!

Here's a T-shirt I'd pay good money for. Even if for just walking into a Games Workshop store and see what reaction I'd get.

Those need to be given away at the front doors of gamesday.

 Ravenous D wrote:

That's the thing though, a lot of GWs "symbols" are straight up stolen from other sources and claimed as their own.

GW may very well not own those images. I doubt many/most of their claims would stand up in court. But that's irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Chessex has no intention of getting bogged down in such a case for whatever reason, for good or for ill.

This is the second instance in the past month of Chessex saying no that I've read here. This is the first.

Edited

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
I'm not seeing the problem here. GW have every right to stop unlicensed third parties from using their artwork.

It depends on what is "GW's artwork".

The Alaitoc symbol is a cogwheel with two cogs extended to follow the shape of a sword symbol placed over it, and a crescent moon over all.

If it expresses originality of art, then it is worthy of protections, the same as anyone else's original work.

OTOH if it has strong similarities to other works, then perhaps it is not original enough to be worthy of protection.

It would need an art historian to research this point. I can't help feeling it is too trivial to be worth the time.

Secondly, GW will probably claim trademark status for the Alaitoc symbol, which means it doesn't need to be original.

Heres what I sent, both are different from the "official GW design"

That looks different enough to me. It's a sword through a crescent moon. Just because GW owns one design of a sword through a crescent moon, doesn't mean they own ALL designs of a sword through a crescent moon.

So due to this development, is there any public domain symbols that could represent 40k armies?

Well for Blood Angels, a drop is about as generic as it gets. Whether you call it a blood drop, a rain drop or any other liquid.

There's enough European heraldry to cover most of the Imperial forces. The Zoroastrian eagle done in stark contrast would be really close to the Imperial eagle. Just replace the human figure with two birds facing away from one another.

A cog is a fairly generic symbol that can represent Mechanicus stuff.

As has been shown, Medieval alchemist symbols work great for Eldar (as that is wherr GW stole them from).

The Tau sept symbols are just circles within circles with the areas separated by lines. You can probably find some traditional circle art that looks a lot like that.

Tyranids are big nasty monsters. So anything works well there. A shark head that ends right before the gills would work perfectly.

There really isn't anything original to the symbols representing GW's factions, so finding something should be fairly easy.

And the way to get Chessex to make the dice is to mention your source when you send in the design. Don't ask for "tyranid dice" when you can request they use this shark head symbol image you came up with. Call your eagle "medieval German heraldry dice". If you want a templar cross, don't mention "black templars" in your order.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Unless they furnish Chessex with a list of designs before they take orders for designs there's an argument for reasonableness.

They did.


I had some custom Dark Angels dice made by Chessex last summer. In December 2012 I contacted Chessex to make some inversions of those (opposite colors - same symbol). They informed me they had received a warning letter from GW with a list of symbols and images that they were not allowed to use.

I fully support Chessex on this - there is NO reason anybody should doubt or interfere with their desire to stay out of GW's way legally. And as a heads up to all of you - they are extremely nice and helpful people over at Chessex. Great guys. Give them a call and they will help you out as much as legally possible. I'm a huge fan.

You know what really grinds my gears?

This is the ONE market where GW could license their trademarks and have 100% control over the products design. I guran-damn-tee that Chessex would be fine with a licensing deal where they could sell dice with GW logos on them and GW got a cut.

GW doesn't make those items, so it's not direct competition, and even if GW did want to make them, I'm sure Chessex would end up being the manufacturer.

Stupid. GW insists on raising prices instead of finding new ways to monetize their IP.

Would be interesting to see that list and compare it with the rejected claims in the CHS lawsuit (once the verdict is final).

I may "enjoy" a good GW kicking like anyone else but I figure GW should be able to intervene on directly competing product with their artwork.

Some measure of IP protection needs to be done.

I would suggest finding something that may have "inspired" GW and point to it and say "no it is not a GW artwork: see link". All is good then.

 Talizvar wrote:
I may "enjoy" a good GW kicking like anyone else but I figure GW should be able to intervene on directly competing product with their artwork.

Some measure of IP protection needs to be done.

I would suggest finding something that may have "inspired" GW and point to it and say "no it is not a GW artwork: see link". All is good then.

How is it a competing product? GW don't make custom dice, in fact no one buys dice from GW anyway as they are the same price as their weight in gold, most people buy dice from ebay or a cheap toy/game retailer. Would it be so difficult for GW to turn to chessex and say "ok you produce dice with our symbols on, we get 20%". Instead GW stop people making a product they are unable or unwilling to provide.

Ugly Green Trog wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
I may "enjoy" a good GW kicking like anyone else but I figure GW should be able to intervene on directly competing product with their artwork.Some measure of IP protection needs to be done.I would suggest finding something that may have "inspired" GW and point to it and say "no it is not a GW artwork: see link". All is good then.

How is it a competing product? GW don't make custom dice, in fact no one buys dice from GW anyway as they are the same price as their weight in gold, most people buy dice from ebay or a cheap toy/game retailer. Would it be so difficult for GW to turn to chessex and say "ok you produce dice with our symbols on, we get 20%". Instead GW stop people making a product they are unable or unwilling to provide.

GW does sell multiple forms of dice (custom dice are not custom if they copy elements of someone else's) as you say and cost of gold or not: they are allowed to protect their IP.
"No one buys dice from GW anyway" is incorrect or they would never bother producing it. I have seen a few people using their dice so I fail to see your point by observations or on a legal basis.

It is within GW's ability to license out their IP as you propose but they choose not to for better control. Once licensed out airtight terms need to be laid down for their use, it is usually easier to prevent them being used at all.
GW has a legal right to be as possessive and selfish with their imagery and writings as they want, what makes people upset is when they start selling it "like gold" and we see them making other people look elsewhere for gaming.
There have been instances where they start tromping on people who have a confirmed history of their IP and could go after GW if they had deep pockets, that is when we break out the torches and pitchforks.

If it was sold at a fair price and they used common customer service practices, and licensed or bought innovative add-on product from other companies (picture if they had the add-on of the week with prizes? ) we would not be having these discussions.

This whole thing is depressing..

Really hard to believe the small-time hobby I grew up with has turned into this legal groin-to-face thrusting at every opportunity, over this kind of crap that surely only matters to a few people working in a legal department?

'Protecting their IP' ? Really.. give me a break, this whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

The symbols obviously have some value, or people wouldn't a) be trying to get dice made with those symbols; and b) be getting so worked up about not being able to.

 Janthkin wrote:
The symbols obviously have some value, or people wouldn't a) be trying to get dice made with those symbols; and b) be getting so worked up about not being able to.

I don't think anyone much disputes that Janthkin, but how much value, and how protectable? The reaction also has a lot to do with the company's history of enforcement .

Certainly the symbol does not have enough value for GW to use it as a trademark or even prominently on any product. At the end of the day, licence deals, especially with an established and trusted company like Chessex, would seem to be a fair and reasonable way for GW to handle such issues.

But that is not how GW thinks:

Andy Jones

Well, that just can't be right. It's ours. It's in our book. It's up to us when we want to release that product, and it might be we might release it at the same time as we release the book, we might release it six months later, it might be something we're saving up for two years later. That's our choice. That's for us to do with our characters and our stories.

From CHS's rule 59 motion: Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Romulan Invasions, 7U.S.P.Q.2d 1897, 1900, 1988 WL 252376 (T.T.A.B. 1988) (appearance of the Romulans as characters in the storyline of television series or movies did not make Romulans a trademark); In re D.C. Comics, Inc., 689 F.2d 1042, 1043, n.1, 215 U.S.P.Q. 394 (C.C.P.A. 1982) (“the appearance of the JOKER in a story in a BATMAN comic book does not make the JOKER a trademark for the book”). GW’s intentions to create a product in the future are irrelevant.

What is the true crime with all these copy write issues was that the system was designed to bring trade secrets to the light to allow for innovation.

They were supposed to get exclusive use of the idea for 7 years and then it is released to public use.

Presently it is so far removed from this it is ridiculous. It is strange I admit seeing all these Lego like product out there now their design is no longer protected. Wonder when GW has theirs expire?

 Talizvar wrote:
What is the true crime with all these copy write issues was that the system was designed to bring trade secrets to the light to allow for innovation.

They were supposed to get exclusive use of the idea for 7 years and then it is released to public use.

Presently it is so far removed from this it is ridiculous. It is strange I admit seeing all these Lego like product out there now their design is no longer protected. Wonder when GW has theirs expire?

I think you are confusing copyright with patents. Patents are specifically short termed so that future innovators can build on previous technologies and improve them after the original creator has had some time to profit from their idea.

Copyright is to protect artists from being ripped off, but is now abused to great length by corporations who only care about the profits tied to said works, and not to the artistic integrity of the work itself.

It is corporations that lobby for copyright durations to be extended, and as deadlines come up for them you see those companies pushing for longer terms. Iirc copyright in the US is the life of the artist +70 years from time of death. So Mickey Mouse would theoretically expire December 15, 2036. As that date gets closer(assuming it's 70 years, not 100% on that detail) then we'll see Disney pushing for copyright terms to be extended even longer, and we all know they have the money to line the right pockets to pull it off.

It's an abuse of the system that was designed to help PEOPLE protect their work, not corporations.

As Weeble pointed out, inclusion of artwork or ideas in a book or even film does not equate to trademark, and the aforementioned design has questionable protective elements if any. That is precedent, and not an arguable fact.

 Aerethan wrote:
I think you are confusing copyright with patents. Patents are specifically short termed so that future innovators can build on previous technologies and improve them after the original creator has had some time to profit from their idea.
Copyright is to protect artists from being ripped off, but is now abused to great length by corporations who only care about the profits tied to said works, and not to the artistic integrity of the work itself.
It is corporations that lobby for copyright durations to be extended, and as deadlines come up for them you see those companies pushing for longer terms. Iirc copyright in the US is the life of the artist +70 years from time of death. So Mickey Mouse would theoretically expire December 15, 2036. As that date gets closer(assuming it's 70 years, not 100% on that detail) then we'll see Disney pushing for copyright terms to be extended even longer, and we all know they have the money to line the right pockets to pull it off.
It's an abuse of the system that was designed to help PEOPLE protect their work, not corporations.
As Weeble pointed out, inclusion of artwork or ideas in a book or even film does not equate to trademark, and the aforementioned design has questionable protective elements if any. That is precedent, and not an arguable fact.

You are correct, I did confuse with patents vs. copy-writes. My bad.
What I worry about is a corporation has the same rights as a person which I would love to know how the life of the artist is determined since a corporation has no real life span.
70 years is a long time so arguing the fine points of what a copy write can cover is the meat of the issue: I have to hit the books more....

Copyright is also intended to be limited, just like both patents and trademarks, and was originally intended to have a far, far, far shorter term of protection than copyright now affords (thank you Disney). The purpose of copyright, as with patents, is to allow a creator to profit from a creation, after which time it becomes of use to the public.

The most salient difference is that copyright is inherent, whereas a patent is essentially a contract with the government.

Change the sword to a scimitar.. Still recognisable and no GW can own that because they can't own "weapon through crescent moon" in regards to gaming... Many companies have and will do it successfully.

Possible that Chessex is already producing dice for them. The recent Apocalypse dice set has AdMech symbols on them.


GW may have had the legal request tied to the order. A handful of custom dice orders probably were worth far less than the GW order.

The ironic part of this is that the chessex logo is something that GW would likely sue over if they got the idea in their head.

 Aerethan wrote:
The ironic part of this is that the chessex logo is something that GW would likely sue over if they got the idea in their head.

Moorcocks chaos star?

 Aerethan wrote:
The ironic part of this is that the chessex logo is something that GW would likely sue over if they got the idea in their head.

Shhhhhhh, you can't just say stuff like that anymore, GW seem to be becoming aware of the internet.
DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM IDEAS?

 Aerethan wrote:
The ironic part of this is that the chessex logo is something that GW would likely sue over if they got the idea in their head.

I thought the "generic star that happens to have 8 points" was one of the things GW couldn't get prissy about after the CH business?

 kronk wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

That's the thing though, a lot of GWs "symbols" are straight up stolen from other sources and claimed as their own.

GW may very well not own those images. I doubt many/most of their claims would stand up in court. But that's irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Chessex has no intention of getting bogged down in such a case for whatever reason, for good or for ill.

This is the second instance in the past month of Chessex saying no that I've read here. This is the first.

the funny part is chessex did ouroboros dice. Not just as a custom dice either.

Yes but those are Draconis Combine symbols from the defunct (again) Battletech line. (specifically the 4 diamonds was a faction in the WizKids "clicky" version...)

weeble1000 wrote:
The purpose of copyright, as with patents, is to allow a creator to profit from a creation, after which time it becomes of use to the public.

I thought the motivation behind copyright (much like patents) is to encourage people to create "stuff" and distribute their creations (patents and copyrights covering different types of "stuff".) Copyright does allow creators to profit, and I'm sure that's quite intentional, but it's not because of some idea that creators deserve to be rewarded for their work. The profit there is to encourage people to make stuff, so that we can enjoy those creations. Trademarks are very different beasts. I'm coming at this as a lay-person with a bit of a grudge about the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.

 Lansirill wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
The purpose of copyright, as with patents, is to allow a creator to profit from a creation, after which time it becomes of use to the public.

I thought the motivation behind copyright (much like patents) is to encourage people to create "stuff" and distribute their creations (patents and copyrights covering different types of "stuff".) Copyright does allow creators to profit, and I'm sure that's quite intentional, but it's not because of some idea that creators deserve to be rewarded for their work. The profit there is to encourage people to make stuff, so that we can enjoy those creations. Trademarks are very different beasts. I'm coming at this as a lay-person with a bit of a grudge about the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.

Yea, which is why "after which time it becomes of use to the public" is the really, really important bit. Allowing one to profit is a means to the end of, as the US constitution puts it, promoting "the progress of science and the useful arts." So I absolutely agree with you that encouraging inventors and authors to make new inventions and works of art, and thus to elevate and improve society writ large, is the ultimate goal of patent and copyright law. To which end, limited protection, both in terms of scope and duration, is very important. When exclusive rights extend to far in any direction, it has the effect of restricting the progress of arts and science.

It is also important to note that trademark law is fundamentally for consumer protection.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
It is specific enough when it is a sword through the rune for an Eldar craftworld, regardless of scale.

It's not a sword through the rune for an Eldar craftworld, the rune itself is little more than a sword crossing a crescent moon. And if GW thinks they can trademark a 500 year old religious symbol, they're insane.

However the specific design he asked the dice people to use is one produced by gw. You seem to be suggesting that i should be able to use coca cola's logo however I want since it is just writing - after all that has been around for thousands of years!

No, I am suggesting that GW has no right to tell you you're not allowed to put a crucifix on your dice.

You are right, they dont have the right to tell you you cant put a design they dont own the ip on your dice. However they can certainly tell you to not put a design they do own on your dice and i would understand if they were not happy if you put something that is clearly meant to be one of their designs on your dice...

They don't own moons, and they don't own swords. It's a tricky number - you're completely correct in that fighting a private legal case of this kind probably isn't worth it for an individual (unless they're very very wealthy with lots of time on their hands...).

But I think they'd be hard pressed to get any sort of copyright on that symbol. It's just too generic. Either way, if you just made a slight alteration (for example having a slightly different hilt on the sword, or having it cross over in a different manner) to make it completely outside of any legal attempt to stop you using it. It wouldn't be the same symbol and that end's the matter in my mind.

This might be a silly question but could you send Chessex a pic you drew of a sword through a crescent moon and ask them to make that?
You know, just ask for the same icon but word it in a way that gives them plausible deniability if GW ask why something they made looks like a GW icon?

Plausible deniability is not, I think, what the company is concerned about.

Yeah, Chessex doesn't want to risk the money being wasted in court on anything that GW can perceive as theirs, problem is GW believe a lot of things that are free and open to everyone are theirs.

No doubt we will all be 3D printing any dice we like in a year or two.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No doubt we will all be 3D printing any dice we like in a year or two.

Pretty much this. Given how simple dice are in design, and the fact that most people aren't worried about crazy balanced dice, I'm sure all of us will start making custom personalized dice.

I'll probably make a set just for leadership tests, where the 1 and 6 on a dice says feth, and the other die's 1 says You, but the 6 says Me.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No doubt we will all be 3D printing any dice we like in a year or two.

Followed shortly by people printing loaded dice.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No doubt we will all be 3D printing any dice we like in a year or two.

Yeah, I would love to face someone who has printed dice that are heavier on the "1" than the "6" faces on his "to hit and wound" dice and inverted on his "leadership" dice


Edit: Damn, should probably read all the new posts before I reply to something

A friend of mine actually did 3d print a set of dice for Pathfinder (so a d20, d12, d8, etc). He's run some tests and used them in a bunch of games and they roll pretty fair.

http://www.shapeways.com/search?q=dice

You already can...granted, the loaded dice issue exists already if a person is so inclined. 5 seconds on Google can have you rolling 6s till you are blue in the face.

The printed ones in metal roll quite well, though I havent done any in plastic...I am sure they would be suitably random too.

To the original issue, compress the sword to be a dagger (to better fit tge face of a d6) and send the image with the blade pointing up. Completely different than GWs icon. Courts have generally held that simple things like these need to be an exact copy in order to be a copy. Provided that you create the artwork yourself (or have soneone create it) it is sufficiently creative to avoid an infringement claim.

That still doesnt mean that Chessex will make the dice for you, but they are hardly the only dice company in town, especially for d6. Gamestation, Crystal Caste and Game Parts all do them readily enough. Game Parts is a commercial supplier though, so I dont know if you would be intested in the volumes they deal in. I believe Eric Harshbarger still makes custom dice too, along with a bunch of novelty dice.

 dreamakuma wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

That's the thing though, a lot of GWs "symbols" are straight up stolen from other sources and claimed as their own.

GW may very well not own those images. I doubt many/most of their claims would stand up in court. But that's irrelevant.

What is relevant is that Chessex has no intention of getting bogged down in such a case for whatever reason, for good or for ill.

This is the second instance in the past month of Chessex saying no that I've read here. This is the first.

the funny part is chessex did ouroboros dice. Not just as a custom dice either.

Spoiler:

Do they still do these? They look awesome.

I'm going to bet "no" because the Wizkids Mechwarrior Clicky game is defunct now too.


Get thou to fleabay

I wonder if the 'lesser used' icons are on their list of things to not produce that was provided to Chessex. The larger Craftworlds, for instance, I'd imagine would be there. But what about all the ones that only mentioned passingly and were never put on a model or transfer sheet?

Side note. Couldn't you just have the '6' side blanked and print your own 'copy' onto a transfer on the size you wanted...then afix it to that blank. I was under the impression if you are doing it yourself, you are allowed to copy such material for personal use. Wouldn't this suffice to comply in that regard?

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I wonder if the 'lesser used' icons are on their list of things to not produce that was provided to Chessex. The larger Craftworlds, for instance, I'd imagine would be there. But what about all the ones that only mentioned passingly and were never put on a model or transfer sheet?

Side note. Couldn't you just have the '6' side blanked and print your own 'copy' onto a transfer on the size you wanted...then afix it to that blank. I was under the impression if you are doing it yourself, you are allowed to copy such material for personal use. Wouldn't this suffice to comply in that regard?

I wouldn't be surprised if Chessex was just given a non-specific warning to stay away from GW's nebulously-defined back yard. Games Workshop's "IP" is a yard with no fence abutting a golf course and a public park. What are the boundaries? What is public, what is private, what really is owned by Games Workshop?

Games Workshop likes to keep things ambiguous because, as Mr. Kirby's recent statement makes crystal clear, Games Workshop's IP enforcement is strictly limited to "intransigent small infringers;" "individuals and small businesses who 'cease and desist' as soon as they get the letter." They cease and desist because "The scale upon which [Games Workshop does] business is the biggest defence." Games Workshop is big, and "serious about defending [its] IP" regardless of there being no "immediate threat of damage to [Games Workshop's] profits."

In other words, Games Workshop wants individuals and small businesses to know that if they don't immediately 'cease and desist' regardless of what the letter says, they'll get sued by a plaintiff with a whole lot more money. This is apparently why Games Workshop sued Chapterhouse Studios: to scare the ever-living crap out of the third party accessory industry. Note that Chapterhouse Studios is the only "intransigent small infringer" that Games Workshop has actually sued. The only other extant related example being M C A Hogarth, who was the target of a DMCA takedown, and Paulson Games who was named in the aforementioned litigation.

Now, what happened with all of those "intransigent small infringers"? Games Workshop faced a defendant whose defense operated on a scale that dwarfed Games Workshop. Not surprisingly, none of them have been "stopped" either. Paulson Games is still around, Chapterhouse Studios just raised nearly 30K with Kickstarter (compare to a 25K judgement in favor of Games Workshop), and Spots the Space Marine is still on the shelves. In fact, all three are arguably doing better post litigation. And the third party accessory market has grown exponentially since Games Workshop filed a lawsuit against Chapterhouse Studios and John Paulson.

The Chapterhouse lawsuit provides pretty clear examples of what a US jury does and does not feel is infringement when it comes to icons. So where does the industry go from here? What does Chessex, for example, do going forward? We still have only seen one lawsuit from Games Workshop, a lawsuit that still isn't over yet. In fact, Games Workshop was ordered by the Court to participate in settlement negotiations post trial and faces the risk of an appeal and an award of costs and attorneys fees to the defendant.

Does Games Workshop have the juice to file another lawsuit? Is Games Workshop willing to take the risk that, as has happened every time thus far, the defendant receives pro-bono representation? Is Games Workshop willing to risk getting involved in another years long lawsuit that will ultimately cost a healthy percentage of Games Workshop's profits and further erode its declining goodwill? Has Games Workshop's experiences with Chapterhouse Studios, Paulson Games, and Hogarth made the company disinclined to file another lawsuit?

We'll have to wait and see, but a really good question to ask is will history repeat itself, and if it does, can Games Workshop afford it? You bet your boots Games Workshop will be thinking about it the next time Kirby and Co. consider filing a lawsuit, and you can be darn sure that after reading that little diddy in the Annual Report, investors will also be taking a look at Games Workshop's contingent liabilities.

Are we seriously still beating this horse?

Yes, some of GW's trademarked logos can be interpreted as universal symbols. But if someone in the games industry uses it, GW has the right to protect its IP. If a car company decided to use a winged sword as a logo, I doubt GW would raise a fuss, as it has nothing to do with cars.

I swear I have never seen a fanbase so set on hating its own stuff...

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Are we seriously still beating this horse?

Yes, some of GW's trademarked logos can be interpreted as universal symbols. But if someone in the games industry uses it, GW has the right to protect its IP. If a car company decided to use a winged sword as a logo, I doubt GW would raise a fuss, as it has nothing to do with cars.

I swear I have never seen a fanbase so set on hating its own stuff...

I think you have it backwards. I swear I have never seen a company so set on hating its own customers.

So let me get this straight... People can no longer get custom dice with their army logo on it? i really wanted red dice with the mark of khorne on them!

 The World XEater wrote:
So let me get this straight... People can no longer get custom dice with their army logo on it? i really wanted red dice with the mark of khorne on them!

You can get them, but only from GW (assuming GW makes them). Or, you could make them yourself if you had the materials to do so.

However, if a third party company sells dice with a GW copyrighted logo on them, then that company risks being sued for copyright infringement.

Locked due to thread necromancy. In most cases, please do not reply to a thread that's more than a month old. There are a few exceptions, like Painting and Modeling progress updates.

Please let me or another mod know if you have any questions.