In the last few days he's claiming that Shapeways are removing items from his store ("Latest count is 302 items taken down") and is blaming GW, despite "No official word yet for Shapeways" (https://www.facebook.com/POPgoestheMonkey/)
As expected, this has somewhat split our local community - some people are yelling at GW, others saying POP should have been more original, etc., but also people are pointing out that POP sharing images like this on Twitter (https://twitter.com/PopGoesMonkey) are likely to cause him more problems:
I'm not surprised. POP brought this upon himself so my sympathy for him is rather low.
While he did use 'original-not-copyrighted-IP' names, his advertising of his items on twitter must have caught him out. Didn't help he specifically said 'I do bits for 40k' and had an actual display at NOVA with his stuff on actual GW models.
Don't get me wrong, GW legal can be arses, but I feel in this case POP was not helping himself and crying about it showed either his inexperience or just feeling that he could go bigger and bigger without covering himself correctly legally.
Freddy Kruger wrote: Didn't help he specifically said 'I do bits for 40k' and had an actual display at NOVA with his stuff on actual GW models.
Which is all perfectly legal. The only thing that would be illegal in this context would be recasting.
He was advertising his items on GW models. If he was just advertising his items with nothing else, then it wouldn't be a problem. However, he's effectively using GW minis to advertise his items. That's where the problem is.
Also, I didn't use illegal. I said what it was. Using someone else's IP to demonstrate your IP.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I'm not surprised. POP brought this upon himself so my sympathy for him is rather low.
While he did use 'original-not-copyrighted-IP' names, his advertising of his items on twitter must have caught him out. Didn't help he specifically said 'I do bits for 40k' and had an actual display at NOVA with his stuff on actual GW models.
Don't get me wrong, GW legal can be arses, but I feel in this case POP was not helping himself and crying about it showed either his inexperience or just feeling that he could go bigger and bigger without covering himself correctly legally.
You'll have to point out where he hasn't "covered himself correctly", because I've yet to see any examples. Using iconography that has historical roots going back thousands of years in some cases is not illegal. Stating you produce aftermarket components for another company's products is not illegal. Making things with a slight curve in them is not copyrightable.
This is Chapterhouse all over again, to the point I'm actually struggling to believe GW are behind it - are they not sick of having their farcical IP overreach explode in their own faces?
EDIT: Freddy, can you point to where the law actually says you can't do that? Because I'm pretty sure I've seen plenty of adverts for stuff like aftermarket car parts that prominently feature the cars the aftermarket parts are made for, their name, and the name of the company that makes them. You can't use *GW's* photos of their own models because they own the copyright on the images, but the models themselves? Fair game as far as I can tell.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Don't forget Shapeways isn't a court of law. If they see a complaint, it looks legit, then it's not worth the trouble of fighting it out.
But Shapeways are *subject* to the law, and I'm fairly sure a copyright claim has to be legitimate to be enforceable. This could be some bullgak YouTube-style automated takedown system, but if they don't review the complaint and reinstate they'll surely be breaching their own contracts with the seller.
I'm just saying - I doubt in law terms anything has gone on that's wrong. I should have been clearer, that while he probably has taken every precaution and probably asked for guidance, someone, somewhere will STILL find something to strike.
@Yodhrin, you are correct on the car analogy, but what I was trying to point out that while taking photos of models with your parts on them isn't wrong, I'm betting the fact that it was on social media, at NOVA, etc. Which was probably used by somebody to create hassle for him. Also, I feel you might have hit the nail on the head - GW specifically targeting certain items is to clinical, they'd get the lot.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Don't forget Shapeways isn't a court of law. If they see a complaint, it looks legit, then it's not worth the trouble of fighting it out.
But Shapeways are *subject* to the law, and I'm fairly sure a copyright claim has to be legitimate to be enforceable. This could be some bullgak YouTube-style automated takedown system, but if they don't review the complaint and reinstate they'll surely be breaching their own contracts with the seller.
Bodies often claim copyright/IP rights on lots of stuff, the law doesn't stipulate that X, Y or Z only the perameters of what you can hold. It take a legal case to establish hard boundaries in case law.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Don't forget Shapeways isn't a court of law. If they see a complaint, it looks legit, then it's not worth the trouble of fighting it out.
But Shapeways are *subject* to the law, and I'm fairly sure a copyright claim has to be legitimate to be enforceable. This could be some bullgak YouTube-style automated takedown system, but if they don't review the complaint and reinstate they'll surely be breaching their own contracts with the seller.
Bodies often claim copyright/IP rights on lots of stuff, the law doesn't stipulate that X, Y or Z only the perameters of what you can hold. It take a legal case to establish hard boundaries in case law.
But in this kind of online case claims typically relate to DMCA "safe harbour" provisions, which require the host/seller/provider to respond to copyright claims they recieve, however if the claim is disputed by the producer/seller it's *supposed* to bounce back and place the onus on the claimant to prove their claim is valid by choosing to escalate it to the courts, and if they fail to do so the host/seller/provider has to reinstate whatever was taken down. So if POP chooses to dispute this, which I hope they do, Shapeways must bring back the items unless it does go to a court case.
Now, maybe it is GW, and maybe they are prepared to go to court, but frankly I'd have expected them to begin by threatening POP directly in their customary fashion, and if they haven't(again, assuming it was GW and not some trolling white knight scumbag or rights-claiming vulture bot) it makes me think they're not that confident after Chapterhouse and are hoping businesses will fold out of fear/inconvenience-related losses.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Don't forget Shapeways isn't a court of law. If they see a complaint, it looks legit, then it's not worth the trouble of fighting it out.
My booth was actually next to theirs at Nova, and I was wondering about the items displayed on GW models. I asked their community manager there about their displaying the parts on GW models, and he said they'd discussed it with their lawyers and been told it was fine. I specifically asked in the context of our using only 3rd party miniatures at our booth display, and mentioned the Chapterhouse case.
However, in a separate conversation we also discussed the Star Wars "Uglies" ships they were showing off (they even included a sweet original starship design in the swag bags!) and just how they handle IP infringement claims on the site in general. He said basically if someone claims they have it, they have it, as far as how Shapeways practically approaches it. He also mentioned that it's between the creator and the person claiming infringement to work out.
So with those two things in mind, and given the timing of this happening right after displaying the bits at Nova, I think the following is likely:
1. Shapeways is likely absolutely correct in their legal counsel telling them they can display GW compatible bits on GW models.
2. This practice might, however, have landed the particular bits seller on Shapeways in GW's crosshairs, and Shapeways' policy is to comply with takedown requests.
Long story short, GW has reformed in a lot of ways but it still probably makes sense to avoid using their models in promoting bits if you want to avoid any legal shenanigans!
Again, Shapeways are obligated to comply with the takedown, but they are also obligated under the DMCA's provisions for takedowns to reinstate the subject of the claims if the person being claimed against disputes the claim and the claimant chooses not to escalate to proper legal recourse.
Could it be the creating copies of the citadel models (via photography) to commercially advertise Pop's own product (the custom bits) that GW might take offence to?
nareik wrote: Could it be the creating copies of the citadel models (via photography) to commercially advertise Pop's own product (the custom bits) that GW might take offence to?
They can take all the offence they like, it's not illegal. Copyright for a photo belongs to the individual who takes the photo, not its subject or the owner of its subject. In some places the owner of the subject can insist people not take photos at all without their specific permission, but such prohibitions are still subject to fair use provisions even in commercial situations, and you'd have a job getting a court to back you on preventing aftermarket parts makers from using photos they themselves took of your models with their parts while allowing dozens of third-party retailers to take photos of your products to sell them on their webstores.
The part that makes this all a little weirder is that Shapeways has recently been promoting Pop's stuff as a showcase for their service on the various Shapeways social media channels. It would seem pretty crappy for them to be promoting his stuff as an example of what they can do one day (including having a presence at NOVA and mentioning Pop's presence), then to be pulling his stuff without giving a far shake the next.
Yodhrin wrote: In some places the owner of the subject can insist people not take photos at all without their specific permission, but such prohibitions are still subject to fair use provisions even in commercial situations, and you'd have a job getting a court to back you on preventing aftermarket parts makers from using photos they themselves took of your models with their parts while allowing dozens of third-party retailers to take photos of your products to sell them on their webstores.
My understanding was that there is a limit on fair use of another company's product in your own advertising - if you appear to be suggesting the company who's product you're using is a willing partner in that relationship and they're not it hurts the fair use claim. This is why you'll see a Coke commercial that claims its better than Pepsi, but you'll never see a Coke commercial that shows off what happens when you empty a pack of Mentos into it.
Using GW minis to show how his stuff fits isn't a real legal issue- but it is the sort of thing that gets GW's attention.
Looking over his products, I can see a few that look like direct copies of Citadel decals.
In his Twitter, Pop basically admits to it when he says that "some" of the removed pics were his original designs (implying that "some" and possibly "most" of them were not).
I'm sure that Shapeways just doesn't want to deal with it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: They're got over 1000 items. What have they lost?
They haven't listed anything yet, but going off this image they shared I'm guessing some not-TS stuff -
Spoiler:
Just checked and those shields are still there under individual items. Looking through the stuff, the items that were similar to the FW items appears to be missing.
With GW being present at more events, it's likely they didn't like how blatant POP was on showing off his stuff.
There is a legal distinction between something being "made for 40k" and being "compatible with" which is what CH/Nick got sued over. You cannot state that the product is made exclusively for 40k (or other property) but you are allowed to state that your product fits or is compatible with a given object as that implies an open ended use as opposed to a specific intended purpose.
Prior to the lawsuit CH had specifically advertised their stuff as "Space Marine Shoulder Pad" or "Space Marine Rhino Door" which implies that it is a GW product and exclusively works with Space Marine items which CH does not own the rights to, after the lawsuit they switched to using the phrase "Compatible with Space Marine Rhinos" which is legally distinct language and allowed under Fair Use and for comparison purposes. The same is true if you were marketing a phone case as an "iPhone 6 case" vs "phone case compatible with iPhone 6" the first usage implies that it is a branded item/property with a specific use, the second second denotes that it can be used with an iPhone but isn't exclusive. It's a fine line and can be confusing but it's legal wrangling.
I had just just been looking at the Pop products last weekend and most of their listings used terms like "space marine x", or "made for 40k" which immediately made me think of Chris Rock saying: I think George Lucas gonna to sue somebody! (in this case it being GW instead) How you phrase things in your advertising is subtle but has a major impact in how it's defined legally and in Pop's case they seem to have missed that distinction.
Pop might be mad that some of their products were taken down, but that's just Shapeways covering their ass after likely receiving a complaint. Pop would probably feel much more pissed off if he got a C&D, or if GW went right to lodging a full blown suit without warning. (which happened to me as part of the CH case) They should use this moment to step back and review the language they use to promote their products and fix some of the stuff that is blatant rip offs of GW logos. People can produce 3rd party stuff just fine but there is a set of legal parameters that you have to work within, which Pop has not been doing properly.
It's important to remember that the GW/CH case is not a single win or loss, there were almost 200 claims in the complaint and while CH/Nick defended himself against a majority of them about 30% of the complaints were found to be valid and he had to restructure a lot of the language he used to advertise so that he could comply with the courts ruling. Prior to the suit CH had cited Fair Use as a roadmap to say and do whatever he wanted which was a very flawed understanding of what Fair Use actually allows you to do. You can use GW models in your own pictures, you can make 3rd party stuff and you can demonstrate or state it's compatibility with a given product, but you can't cite it as being "for" a GW product.
nareik wrote: @paulson games: Like how 'fake' lego claims it is 'compatible with all major miniature building block brands' or whatever?
Yes it'd be similar, although there are a few differences with the Lego situation. Lego had a patent on the way their blocks interlocked which lapsed due to them not re-filing in time so that now allows other companies to use the same mechanical design. (none of GW's items are protected by patents)
Despite the patent becoming public, 3rd party companies still cannot use the Lego logo or the Lego name in their advertising as those are covered under trademarks, they can refer to their items as being compatible or interchangeable with Lego block type products, but cannot claim they are specifically "Legos"
See, if the wording is incorrect, that seems like the kind of thing that could be sorted out with a quick email rather than using DMCA to nuke someone's product line.
I'd usually side against GW with this sort of a case (Raging Heroes should be able to sell their Lamasu heads, etc).
But Pop's designs look like they were copied from the transfer sheet, and he advertised them using Games Workshop chapter names (on facebook and twitter)..
There's got to be a line somewhere where it isn't ok for people to do this -no matter how big the corporation, or even their history with unscrupulous C&D letters.
Yodhrin wrote: See, if the wording is incorrect, that seems like the kind of thing that could be sorted out with a quick email rather than using DMCA to nuke someone's product line.
They have to nuke products on occasion as to make sure they have records of protecting their ip. its pretty standard procedure even if it hurts other businesses.
I'd usually side against GW with this sort of a case (Raging Heroes should be able to sell their Lamasu heads, etc).
But Pop's designs look like they were copied from the transfer sheet, and he advertised them using Games Workshop chapter names (on facebook and twitter)..
There's got to be a line somewhere where it isn't ok for people to do this -no matter how big the corporation, or even their history with unscrupulous C&D letters.
IIRC, when Blight Wheel had their promo mini nuked by GW Legal a few years back, better, more knowledgeable legal minds than mine said that one cannot use a 2D representation of something to claim ownership over a 3D version.
Therefore, assuming that's correct, making 3D sculpted versions based on 2D art doesn't cross a clearly established line.
Yodhrin wrote: See, if the wording is incorrect, that seems like the kind of thing that could be sorted out with a quick email rather than using DMCA to nuke someone's product line.
They have to nuke products on occasion as to make sure they have records of protecting their ip. its pretty standard procedure even if it hurts other businesses.
I'm pretty sure they just need to show they're actively using it, otherwise how would companies who'd gone x amount of time with nobody else doing something that could even be vaguely considered encroaching on their IP be able to defend themselves if another party suddenly did?
Here's a little inside baseball for you as to why PgtM didn't receive any warning or even the courtesy of a C&D; Shapeways has been doing resin printing and production for Forge World.
No doubt they received "a word in their ear" and "friendly encouragement" to do things quietly lest they be caught in another CH-style quagmire.
As long as his work was his own and all his designs were of non-trademarked or copywriter and registered origins (no matter how loudly or often GW says it, they do not and never will own any sort of heraldic device, arrow, numeral, tribal design, et. al.) GW really wouldn't have standing.
The only way to beat the CH case was to keep the defendant from being able to make his appeal. GW had an affirmative defense but lost on 75% of their initial claims, something which would make them gun shy about openly pursuing another similar case.
Azrael, is that why the plastic Custodes are not accurate to the art--because some other company was first with the 3D representation of the 2D artwork, and GW could then be sued for infringement if they made their own 3D interpretation of the Custodes' 2D art?
No idea, like I say I just remember Blight Wheel getting C+D'd for some monster they'd sculpted as a con exclusive based on some old GW art, and someone (I don't remember who, but clearly felt they had grounds to be knowledgeable) explaining that 2D-3D transitions weren't enforceable.
I mean, it makes sense, it takes a different set of skills, and there's no way you can confuse a miniature for a pencil sketch!
Although it appears from my first response I was already under this impression from before, so feck knows where I got the idea now!
It was evidently weeble (a trial consultant so very well informed on the law) who I was remembering, essentiallly the TLDR is "it depends, ask the judge when you get to court." Also, I miss Brylcreem, he was spectacularly odd in his opinions, I wonder where he is now?
In the US simply changing the format between 2d to 3d isn't enough to be considered a unique work. There is a legal landmark set for this in the Roger v Koons case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons) that involved a photograph being used as a reference to build a sculpture, the court ruled that the sculpture was in fact derivative of the original photo and had not been changed enough for it to be considered to be it's own unique creation. It now serves as a part of IP case law and had also been referred to in the GW v CH case as some of the CH items were based on drawings and artwork that GW had published (but never made models for).
During the CH/GW case the ownership of a lot of art published by GW was in question since GW had used a number of freelance artist back in their start up days and they didn't have a written contract to prove if GW or the individual artist owned the images. Attacking the chain of ownership was a round about way for CH's defense to defeat the claim as opposed to claiming the translation from 2d to 3d making it unique as they would have lost on that effort.
Other countries may have a different laws in place but in the US you can't make a sculpture or other 3d object directly based on a drawing or photo. You always need to make enough changes to it that it's considered to be a unique work that stands on it's own.
That's probably another reason GW's art recently basically became drawings of their models - past art was different enough that I think a sculpt would have enough changes to not be considered derivative in many cases.
paulson games wrote: In the US simply changing the format between 2d to 3d isn't enough to be considered a unique work. There is a legal landmark set for this in the Roger v Koons case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons) that involved a photograph being used as a reference to build a sculpture, the court ruled that the sculpture was in fact derivative of the original photo and had not been changed enough for it to be considered to be it's own unique creation. It now serves as a part of IP case law and had also been referred to in the GW v CH case as some of the CH items were based on drawings and artwork that GW had published.
During the CH/GW case the ownership of that art was in question since GW had used a number of freelance artist back in their start up days and they didn't have a written contract to prove if GW or the individual artist owned the images. Chain of ownership was a round about way for CH's defense to defeat the claim as opposed to challenging the translation from 2d to 3d making it unique as they would have lost that.
Other countries may have a different laws in place but in the US you can't make a sculpture or other 3d object directly based on a drawing or photo. You always need to make enough changes to it that it's considered to be a unique work that stands on it's own.
If you read the thread I linked, you'll see that RogersvKoons isn't necessarily a cut and dried answer to the transition of medium question. Essentially it seems transition of medium is an insulation from successful prosecution, but not necessarily an immunity.
Azreal13 wrote: No idea, like I say I just remember Blight Wheel getting C+D'd for some monster they'd sculpted as a con exclusive based on some old GW art, and someone (I don't remember who, but clearly felt they had grounds to be knowledgeable) explaining that 2D-3D transitions weren't enforceable.
I mean, it makes sense, it takes a different set of skills, and there's no way you can confuse a miniature for a pencil sketch!
Although it appears from my first response I was already under this impression from before, so feck knows where I got the idea now!
It was evidently weeble (a trial consultant so very well informed on the law) who I was remembering, essentiallly the TLDR is "it depends, ask the judge when you get to court." Also, I miss Brylcreem, he was spectacularly odd in his opinions, I wonder where he is now?
For that kind of thing, we don't have anymore artwork that isn't a literal representation of a already existing miniature...
I'm not going to wade through 13 pages of thread to try and figure out which exact part you are referencing. But I will agree with the idea that IP case law isn't always a cut and dried situation, some cases that are decided one way might have an opposite conclusion if tried in a different court with a different judge or jury. Nothing with IP Law is ever air tight, however most cases will refer back to previous trials and established legal precedents and tend to side with those.
The Koons case established that changing the media format is not enough protection on it's own, you still need to take additional steps beyond that to make something considered unique.
(some people had posted suggesting that a 2d to 3d format change is enough protection, which is counter to what past legal cases have shown)
Koons also tried to use Fair Use as a cover all defense like CH was trying to claim, and was proven to be outside the boundry of what Fair Use actually protects. CH lost a good number of their fair use defense claims and got hammered on those because of how they were using GW names combined with CH products.
azreal13 wrote: Isn't it already established that IP infringement can't cross mediums? So a 3D sculpt of a 2D artwork is not an issue?
No. If that was true, why would anyone ever produce licensed films or merchandise, when you could just make it without giving the creator anything?
For example, here's a sculpture by Jeff Koons that was found to infringe the IP of a photographer.
Watch out for the Rogers v Koons case. It was mainly a case of fair use as there was rare direct evidence of copying, and what amounted to a virtual admission of copying by the defendant. Also, the sculpture attempted to replicate the photograph in all details in which it was possible, so viewing the sculpture was essentially viewing the same people at the same angle as the photograph was taken.
When you are talking about what makes a photograph 'art', framing, staging, lighting, focus, basically all of the elements that con be manipulated potentially create protected expression. The subject itself is often not protectable. Koons replicated, or sought to replicate, those types of details. It was not that the people in the sculpture looked the same, but that the sculpture replicated the framing, positioning of the subjects, and so forth. In fact, the sculpture barely looked like a sculpture. So again, in copyright cases one is dealing with very fact dependent issues.
The case was decided on summary judgment and is a decision that remains hotly debated today.
Further, the Koons case has been cited by Plaintiff counsel in the GW v CHS case, to not terribly significant impact. A far more apt case would be FASA v Playmate.
I'll tell you what did happen a few months back in another Shapeways incident.
There were a lot, a LOT of star trek ships on there, lots of really nice stuff, which many of us were using to rescale attack wing fleets to something more appropriate. Then, one by one, they started getting shut down, firstly by a few ships being taken off their page, then entire sculptors shops vanishing.
As I recall, it was stated then that Shapeways basically will target anyone who gets a half arsed report submitted about them as it's easier to kneejerk delete the design than bother to work out who's right or wrong.
And then, many of us started to notice there was one already fairly large fish in the pond who just kept getting bigger, and eventually ended up the largest ship design shop of all by a country mile.
Several designers/shop owners remain convinced he (/she or it) was the actual cause of reports, not Paramount or any other actual IP owner... but just one of the shop owners sabotaging his competition. He is still there and has certainly branched out considerably since I last looked. His 'shipyards' got a lot larger.
I don't think GW would be overly fussed about this tbh and have backed right off of dropping the IP sledgehammer all over the place like legal wack-a-mole of late (as though, perhaps, the instigating IP/legal force had left the building and noone else quite saw the Merrett in pursuing squabbling lawsuits when there was a business to run instead...). The Chapterhouse debacle likely left a very sour taste in the mouth back in Nottingham.
I have to admit my first thought on reading the thread was some disgruntled White Knight or perhaps the competition, but I was under the impression you had to be the owner of the IP in question to file any sort of grievence.
If that's not the case, then I think that's far more likely than GW themselves at this point.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I'll tell you what did happen a few months back in another Shapeways incident.
There were a lot, a LOT of star trek ships on there, lots of really nice stuff, which many of us were using to rescale attack wing fleets to something more appropriate. Then, one by one, they started getting shut down, firstly by a few ships being taken off their page, then entire sculptors shops vanishing.
As I recall, it was stated then that Shapeways basically will target anyone who gets a half arsed report submitted about them as it's easier to kneejerk delete the design than bother to work out who's right or wrong.
And then, many of us started to notice there was one already fairly large fish in the pond who just kept getting bigger, and eventually ended up the largest ship design shop of all by a country mile.
Several designers/shop owners remain convinced he (/she or it) was the actual cause of reports, not Paramount or any other actual IP owner... but just one of the shop owners sabotaging his competition. He is still there and has certainly branched out considerably since I last looked. His 'shipyards' got a lot larger.
I don't think GW would be overly fussed about this tbh and have backed right off of dropping the IP sledgehammer all over the place like legal wack-a-mole of late (as though, perhaps, the instigating IP/legal force had left the building and noone else quite saw the Merrett in pursuing squabbling lawsuits when there was a business to run instead...). The Chapterhouse debacle likely left a very sour taste in the mouth back in Nottingham.
This makes sense. It is also in line with my knowledge about the partnership that FW has with Shapeways.
I could see Shapeways using its power to limit the competition, and it is their very own platform so they are within their rights to limit or reject projects that might encroach on their own interests.
Ketara wrote: Remember kids! White Dwarf thinks that everyone loses from overly strict enforcement of copyright!
Spoiler:
In my opinion there is a difference.
The context of that article is a frustrated games/figure developer lamenting a movie merchandise was unwilling to license their IP to a different / niche market.
What is happening in the OP is that POP goes the MONKEY has been creating uninnovative 40k pieces (that compete with citadel) without even a pretention of wanting/trying to obtain a license.
The gripe in the picture is IP holders not capitalising their IP by refusing to license to other markets, ergo everyone loses. What is happening in the OP is someone making copycat product, without license within the same market.
I'm not saying GW is right in what it might have done, but I am saying you are creating a false equivalency and misrepresenting the message of the article.
nareik wrote: @paulson games: Like how 'fake' lego claims it is 'compatible with all major miniature building block brands' or whatever?
It may be legal... but god do I hate all those fake legos.
I also hate lego quality going down the drain.
In my time ....
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, about IP in general: the law isn't fair to copyright holders.
Think about GW: they came at a time when there was nothing comparable to WH or WH40K, they built stores to educate the market, they sold their products there, a market was created, people started buying GW specialist games, then non-GW games, and all of a sudden, most of the people benefiting from GW's initial effort, were not GW.
No matter how you slice it, if someone so much as makes a model for 40K, following the same design guidelines as GW's models, they should in all fairness pay something to GW, who created their target market (people interested in 40k-esque miniatures).
Unfortunately, regulations are too lax, as the ChapterHouse case proved: it makes zero sense that CH would be able to run a business based strictly on providing 40k-esque miniatures to 40k customers.
This is essentially leeching, which I personally do not find acceptable.
Kings of War was created to sell cheap drop-in replacement to GW's WHFB range, and was mostly financially viable thanks to that exact idea.
In order to somewhat dodge the impending IP claim, they made up a two page ruleset to say they were "selling a game" and did not "intend" to sell alternative miniatures for somebody else's game.
While it certainly is legal, I find it is unfair and takes money away from the people who created it all, the people we have to thank for creating and sharing this hobby with us, whoever they are.
I think many people who find GW too cash-grabb-y lack the experience of starting a business, facing a ton of hardships and investing a lot of yourself for years, only to see others profit from your investment.
I think nobody wants to be leeched of their energy, and I think the general public doesn't want company starters to feel demotivated because they're getting leeched.
In the end, whoever GW is, they are the people who brought us WHFB and 40K, they are the people who made me dream about Eldar miniatures, and I totally enjoyed those experiences.
So what you're saying is that GW should pay all of the people who own the IPs they blatantly ripped off to create their universe. They should pay Heinlein's heirs for creating the demand for space marines, Sylvester Stallone for creating the demand for "Rambo in space" Catachans (complete with thinly-veiled Rambo special character), Tolkein's heirs for creating the demand for 90% of WHFB, etc. I mean, we're just talking about fairness here...
@Morgoth I really cannot shed any tears for a company that made a melange of Tolkein and Moorcock and called it a fantasy world. And then added Frank Herbert and Heinlein to create a science fiction world.
I have about as much sympathy for them as I do for TSR/WoC trying to protect their 'original' IP.
I think it was the 2nd edition Chaos Codex where the author used the quote 'If I have seen far it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants'. The intros to Rogue Trader listed off influences including Star Wars and threw in Sherlock Obi-Won Clouseeu as an Inquisitor.
If 3rd party producers should pay up, GW owes a lot of money further upstream.
Copyright does NOT protect ideas or styles it protects specific executions of ideas.
I have no love for recasters or internet pirates, but if someone writes a story about the Space Empire of the 401st Century or sculpts their own Space Elf model they're building on what others have done to make their own creation just like every writer and artist in history had done.
I agree with the idea that copyright law is failing. For different reasons though.
I don't think it is right that an artist can do a sketch for a sculpture but copyright law then gives the protection of the sculpture to a different sculptor because (s)he saw the sketch and made a copy before the original was completed.
However, I don't think it is correct to say GW did all the ground work. They started off selling chessboards, dungeons and dragons paraphernalia and so on. They used this as a vehicle for selling miniatures, then eventually the miniatures they sold became a vehicle for selling their own wargames (and yet more miniatures).
GW might have developed the market (and continue to benefit from that), but when a farmer scatters a few seeds outside his boundaries he can't expect to take a cut of the harvest from his neighbours fields too.
edit: And as it happens, many of the farmers owning the fields surrounding GW's are ex-GW employees. These ex-employees were the ones who supplied the grain to begin with!
I don't think GW would be overly fussed about this tbh and have backed right off of dropping the IP sledgehammer all over the place like legal wack-a-mole of late (as though, perhaps, the instigating IP/legal force had left the building and noone else quite saw the Merrett in pursuing squabbling lawsuits when there was a business to run instead...). The Chapterhouse debacle likely left a very sour taste in the mouth back in Nottingham.
Are we just going to skip over this doozy of a pun?
nareik wrote: I don't think it is right that an artist can do a sketch for a sculpture but copyright law then gives the protection of the sculpture to a different sculptor because (s)he saw the sketch and made a copy before the original was completed.
But that's not really what is happening. The second sculptor isn't making an exact copy of the original design and replacing it, they're making a separate work of art that is an expression of the same original concept. For example, GW can make a sketch of a space elf with a spear and laser pistol, and anyone can take the general idea of "space elf with a spear and laser pistol" and make their own version. But GW can also make their own sculpt and sell it, they don't lose the rights to do so just because someone else beat them to it. The non-GW sculptor can't do anything to stop GW from selling theirs, unless GW is stupid enough to copy it too directly. The only way GW loses is if the customers prefer the non-GW "space elf with spear and laser pistol", and that's entirely GW's fault for producing an inferior product.
And remember, this is the same principle that gives you GW games at all. GW's IP is highly derivative of other IP, if you remove the ability to create your own version of a concept then GW would cease to exist.
Ketara wrote: Remember kids! White Dwarf thinks that everyone loses from overly strict enforcement of copyright!
My reading of that is less "we should be allowed to make all the Star Wars knockoffs we like" and more "20th Century Fox should be more willing to grant licences to small-market licencees". Plus it was written thirty years ago by someone who's had not connection with GW for 20 years.
xraytango wrote: Here's a little inside baseball for you as to why PgtM didn't receive any warning or even the courtesy of a C&D; Shapeways has been doing resin printing and production for Forge World.
xraytango wrote: Here's a little inside baseball for you as to why PgtM didn't receive any warning or even the courtesy of a C&D; Shapeways has been doing resin printing and production for Forge World.
This is false. Entirely not true.
As they say on the internet, xraytango, "*Citation needed."
I've been told previously by FW staff (during their convention appearances in the US) that all their production and design work is done entirely in-house, at Nottingham. If you want to claim differently, you need to post a link or provide evidence somehow. Otherwise, I must emphatically support MeanGreenStompa on this.
xraytango wrote: Here's a little inside baseball for you as to why PgtM didn't receive any warning or even the courtesy of a C&D; Shapeways has been doing resin printing and production for Forge World.
This is false. Entirely not true.
As they say on the internet, xraytango, "*Citation needed."
I've been told previously by FW staff (during their convention appearances in the US) that all their production and design work is done entirely in-house, at Nottingham. If you want to claim differently, you need to post a link or provide evidence somehow. Otherwise, I must emphatically support MeanGreenStompa on this.
I'll have to see if I can dig it up, but I found a while back the company that provided GW their 3D printers. Was browsing some commercial units and noticed GW's logo on the company's page of customers.
Plus given GW's issues with leaks, having the 3D files and models handled by a third party doesn't strike me as something they would do.
I think we'd notice it immediately if ForgeWorld outsourced production: there wouldn't be any more warping, release agent residue or bubbles in what they ship anymore.
To this day I still can't believe how a first world business can be so terrible at casting when there are countless examples of people who can cast with 0% warpage.
xraytango wrote: Here's a little inside baseball for you as to why PgtM didn't receive any warning or even the courtesy of a C&D; Shapeways has been doing resin printing and production for Forge World.
This is false. Entirely not true.
As they say on the internet, xraytango, "*Citation needed."
I've been told previously by FW staff (during their convention appearances in the US) that all their production and design work is done entirely in-house, at Nottingham. If you want to claim differently, you need to post a link or provide evidence somehow. Otherwise, I must emphatically support MeanGreenStompa on this.
I'll have to see if I can dig it up, but I found a while back the company that provided GW their 3D printers. Was browsing some commercial units and noticed GW's logo on the company's page of customers.
Plus given GW's issues with leaks, having the 3D files and models handled by a third party doesn't strike me as something they would do.
It's possible that GW's logo was used without their consent.
I think silent25's comment that a 3d printer manufacturer were listing GW as a customer is eveidence against them using Shapeways. It's not uncommon for companies to mention their high-profile customers on their website.
AndrewGPaul wrote: I think silent25's comment that a 3d printer manufacturer were listing GW as a customer is eveidence against them using Shapeways. It's not uncommon for companies to mention their high-profile customers on their website.
That was the point I was trying to make. Unfortunately don't have the link anymore to show it, but is was just one of the pages you see on various manufacturing sites listing the big companies that have bought their product.
Todosi wrote: Has anyone thought that maybe GW has used Shapeways to print prototypes of models in progress to check how the model looks outside of a computer?
For such a big company i highly doubt it.
im pretty sure they would have their own rapid prototyping department.
Todosi wrote: Has anyone thought that maybe GW has used Shapeways to print prototypes of models in progress to check how the model looks outside of a computer?
For such a big company i highly doubt it.
im pretty sure they would have their own rapid prototyping department.
I know they have stated the preview models we see in WD/Codexs are 3D prints. They are given to the painters to work on so they have display models long before the first plastics come off the production line. There was a thread several years back berating the quality of some new dwarf model painting because it looked like there was a fingerprint on it. Turned out it was the 3D print layers.
Todosi wrote: Has anyone thought that maybe GW has used Shapeways to print prototypes of models in progress to check how the model looks outside of a computer?
For such a big company i highly doubt it.
im pretty sure they would have their own rapid prototyping department.
I know they have stated the preview models we see in WD/Codexs are 3D prints. They are given to the painters to work on so they have display models long before the first plastics come off the production line. There was a thread several years back berating the quality of some new dwarf model painting because it looked like there was a fingerprint on it. Turned out it was the 3D print layers.
I believe that was the case for the taurox as well.
I seem to recall that it was the printer manufacturing company displaying logos of people who had the same model printers, as it's common practice to highlight big name customers using your tech. I know I've seen GW listed as a client/buyer at some of the 3d tradeshows. GW may have bought one of the objet printers (like what shapeways uses) but that would have been 8-9 years ago, and a while back they upgraded to an envisiontec printer which is lightyears ahead of what shapeways offers as I've seen some of the GW stuff printed by an envisiontec machine. They've had their own printers for years and both GW & FW print their prototype designs in house. Each printer model has it's own advantages, differing speed, or other qualities so it's highly possible they may have additional printers beyond the envisiontec, but given that it prints at such high quality it's doubtful they'd need anything beyond that.
(I have my prototypes done on an envisiontec printer, but I have to outsource my prints to a commercial printer as I can't afford 60K+ for one of the machines & software)
Zach wrote: Boy I hope they dont come take my 3D printer to stop my Space Warrior pad production.
I think you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head here, regardless of the legality of the IP in question here, Shapeways is under no real obligation to list/make anyone's objects on their site. like nuking the site from orbit, printing stuff yourself is the only way to be sure.
Todosi wrote: Has anyone thought that maybe GW has used Shapeways to print prototypes of models in progress to check how the model looks outside of a computer?
For such a big company i highly doubt it.
im pretty sure they would have their own rapid prototyping department.
Games Workshop has$40 million USD in revenue. I'm pretty confident they could afford a Form 2 of their own. The idea they contract product development out to Shapeways is pants on head, I think.
Also, about IP in general: the law isn't fair to copyright holders.
Think about GW: they came at a time when there was nothing comparable to WH or WH40K, they built stores to educate the market, they sold their products there, a market was created, people started buying GW specialist games, then non-GW games, and all of a sudden, most of the people benefiting from GW's initial effort, were not GW.
No matter how you slice it, if someone so much as makes a model for 40K, following the same design guidelines as GW's models, they should in all fairness pay something to GW, who created their target market (people interested in 40k-esque miniatures).
I know, rite? How about all those fething leeches like Ford and Toyota? They should pay Daimler-Benz royalities.
Or to put it another way, your ignorance is showing. Hugely.
xraytango wrote: Here's a little inside baseball for you as to why PgtM didn't receive any warning or even the courtesy of a C&D; Shapeways has been doing resin printing and production for Forge World.
No doubt they received "a word in their ear" and "friendly encouragement" to do things quietly lest they be caught in another CH-style quagmire.
As long as his work was his own and all his designs were of non-trademarked or copywriter and registered origins (no matter how loudly or often GW says it, they do not and never will own any sort of heraldic device, arrow, numeral, tribal design, et. al.) GW really wouldn't have standing.
The only way to beat the CH case was to keep the defendant from being able to make his appeal. GW had an affirmative defense but lost on 75% of their initial claims, something which would make them gun shy about openly pursuing another similar case.
If this is true, then another Shapeways seller's experiences make a lot more sense. Obviously, I don't have reason to doubt, other than this is the internet. However, another Shapeways seller who frequents a couple of the chapter groups I'm in for Space Sharks, and he's reported much the same: of the 150+ items that he offered on the site, something like, 90 of them have been removed. None of his stuff was based on founding legions, and the bulk of the chapter specific stuff was for chapters which featured in the Badab War books (including the chapter I play)
Also, about IP in general: the law isn't fair to copyright holders.
Think about GW: they came at a time when there was nothing comparable to WH or WH40K, they built stores to educate the market, they sold their products there, a market was created, people started buying GW specialist games, then non-GW games, and all of a sudden, most of the people benefiting from GW's initial effort, were not GW.
No matter how you slice it, if someone so much as makes a model for 40K, following the same design guidelines as GW's models, they should in all fairness pay something to GW, who created their target market (people interested in 40k-esque miniatures).
I know, rite? How about all those fething leeches like Ford and Toyota? They should pay Daimler-Benz royalities.
If all past IP was treated like recent (<25 years) IP, that's exactly what you would see.
You would also see Daimler-Benz pay royalties to other people of course.
morgoth wrote: If all past IP was treated like recent (<25 years) IP, that's exactly what you would see.
You would also see Daimler-Benz pay royalties to other people of course.
And you would see GW pay royalties to all the companies they ripped off.
Of course.
For most companies it would make little to no difference, but at least revenues would trickle down to those who deserve them.
And, since this would be similar to FRAND clauses on current patents, it would be literally impossible for one company to hog a patent while forcing others to spend R&D money to uncover inferior alternatives.
Also, about IP in general: the law isn't fair to copyright holders.
Think about GW: they came at a time when there was nothing comparable to WH or WH40K, they built stores to educate the market, they sold their products there, a market was created, people started buying GW specialist games, then non-GW games, and all of a sudden, most of the people benefiting from GW's initial effort, were not GW.
No matter how you slice it, if someone so much as makes a model for 40K, following the same design guidelines as GW's models, they should in all fairness pay something to GW, who created their target market (people interested in 40k-esque miniatures).
Just to hit this one again... Actually, GW wouldn't have had a chance to grow into what they are today if they'd been paying royalties to Moorcock, Tolkien, Heinlein, Herbert, George Miller, 2000AD & Giger/O'Bannon/Scott/Cameron/20th Century Fox from the point that they'd have been "owed". They'd never had a chance to get big enough to also owe money to Stallone, Disney, Aramaki, Cameron(again)/Orion, Hewlett & Martin, Lynch/Herbert/Universal, ....and so on and on it goes.
Also, about IP in general: the law isn't fair to copyright holders.
Think about GW: they came at a time when there was nothing comparable to WH or WH40K, they built stores to educate the market, they sold their products there, a market was created, people started buying GW specialist games, then non-GW games, and all of a sudden, most of the people benefiting from GW's initial effort, were not GW.
No matter how you slice it, if someone so much as makes a model for 40K, following the same design guidelines as GW's models, they should in all fairness pay something to GW, who created their target market (people interested in 40k-esque miniatures).
Just to hit this one again... Actually, GW wouldn't have had a chance to grow into what they are today if they'd been paying royalties to Moorcock, Tolkien, Heinlein, Herbert, George Miller, 2000AD & Giger/O'Bannon/Scott/Cameron/20th Century Fox from the point that they'd have been "owed". They'd never had a chance to get big enough to also owe money to Stallone, Disney, Aramaki, Cameron(again)/Orion, Hewlett & Martin, Lynch/Herbert/Universal, ....and so on and on it goes.
I think you misunderstand my idea: people should pay *some* royalties, which are actually proportional to how much they are benefiting of other people's IP.
Your list of people they should pay royalties to is probably accurate, but some of these are really minor contributors in the final product.
The Tolkien estate, which is by far and large the biggest impact on WHFB, might only get 1% of revenues for a large part of the WHFB range, and Mr. Stallone something like 1% of revenues for Sly Marbo only.
Royalties as they are implemented today are slowed, wherein the minimum amount is not affordable by small companies, and the rates are unfair to all but the biggest customers, effectively preventing most market actors from getting FRAND of most existing IP.
You may want to take a look at how much royalties actually take off, before throwing numbers....
The other thing to bear in mind is that the Tolkien estate, in particular, would not be taking royalties - they would just be saying 'No',
They are not fond of folks using their IP without permission - and that goes for TSR as much as for GW.
So, ah, no....
And honestly?
GW really does not have much, if anything, that is unique to their IP - their ideas are, for the most part, a syncretic accumulation - let's take lizard men and dress them up as Aztecs! Look! New IP!!!1!
Let's take a WWI tank, and strap laz cannon to it in place of the machine guns and cannon! Look! New IP!!1!
Let's take the figures we were originally making for the Eternal Champions RPGs, and file off Melnibonean, turning them into elves! Look! New IP!!!1!
Remember, they tried to claim Roman numerals.... and grenade launchers, and big shoulder pads, and skulls, skulls, skulls, and fur....
If allowed to claim all the IP that they deserve they would own... nothing.
Getting back on-topic, he's claiming on FB he's had more items removed and he's trying to rant about it - except people keep pointing out he's in the wrong (then those comments get deleted. For example:
beast_gts wrote: Getting back on-topic, he's claiming on FB he's had more items removed and he's trying to rant about it - except people keep pointing out he's in the wrong (then those comments get deleted. For example:
Spoiler:
but his is identical to the HH design:
Spoiler:
But the question isn't "how close are these to GW's design" so much as "is a geometric clenched fist design in a circle unique enough for GW to claim ownership?" Colour isn't relevant as the product isn't supplied pre coloured and wouldn't hugely support a claim anyways.
But the question isn't "how close are these to GW's design" so much as "is a geometric clenched fist design in a circle unique enough for GW to claim ownership?" Colour isn't relevant as the product isn't supplied pre coloured and wouldn't hugely support a claim anyways.
If things went to court, I don't think that would hold up, as most evidence shows he's advertising things in GW color schemes in a clear attempt to draw a certain market.
But the question isn't "how close are these to GW's design" so much as "is a geometric clenched fist design in a circle unique enough for GW to claim ownership?" Colour isn't relevant as the product isn't supplied pre coloured and wouldn't hugely support a claim anyways.
If things went to court, I don't think that would hold up, as most evidence shows he's advertising things in GW color schemes in a clear attempt to draw a certain market.
Which doesn't support GW's claim that they own it any more strongly. If GW cannot claim ownership of "geometric fist in circle" then it goes no further.
Conceivably they could argue the "likely to confuse" angle, but that didn't work in the CHS case and I can't see anything different here.
Azreal13 wrote: But the question isn't "how close are these to GW's design" so much as "is a geometric clenched fist design in a circle unique enough for GW to claim ownership?" Colour isn't relevant as the product isn't supplied pre coloured and wouldn't hugely support a claim anyways.
True. I wonder if there's an (easily accessible) list of things GW have legally claimed ownership of? This is all I could find looking on their main site:
Imitations
Producing copies of Games Workshop’s creations is an infringement of copyright; this includes copying a significant part of our creations. Making models which copy heavily from Games Workshop’s artwork, descriptions or products is therefore an infringement. Is it instantly recognisable as one of Games Workshop’s unique characters, creatures or vehicles? If so, it has likely copied a significant part and is therefore an infringement. Just because we haven’t gotten around to making the model yet doesn’t mean you can.
Using Games Workshop trade marks to name or identify products that were not created by Games Workshop is an infringement of our trade marks. It is very misleading as it suggests something is a Games Workshop product when it is not. Please ensure you do not use Game Workshop’s trademarks in product titles, category headings, adverts etc.
Edit
I'm not sure how legally sound that imitations thing is, I mean, I could say that anyone wearing the same colour t shirt as me today would get sued for imitation, doesn't mean I'd get anywhere if I tried a prosecution. Equally, something is only "Games Workshop's" if they've successfully proven they legally own a thing, that still would mean that needed to be determined, and some things are simply too generic to be owned by anyone.
Still, those librarians better watch out..
Spoiler:
They'd better fight the power on the down low for fear of attracting the wrath of GW legal too..
Were I GW's legal team, I would show whatever information they have on the Fist's logo (Crimson, Imperial, whatever) as I would think it's covered under their "all associated logos, illustrations, images. . . and distinctive likenesses" clause.
Everyhwere else I've seen a geometric clenched fist, whether it's for civil rights movements or other stuff, looks absolutely nothing like the armored fist that GW has drawn for years.
Which doesn't support GW's claim that they own it any more strongly. If GW cannot claim ownership of "geometric fist in circle" then it goes no further.
Conceivably they could argue the "likely to confuse" angle, but that didn't work in the CHS case and I can't see anything different here.
Is GW claiming ownership of the "Fist in a circle" symbol in this instance?
I thought POp's stuff was being removed without explantion, is there confirmation that GW is behind this?
Stormonu wrote: Well, then I suppose House Steiner of Mechwarrior is screwed....
Pepsi's circle with a swooshy thing in the middle of it, in red, white and blue is clearly theirs. . . . What you posted looks quite different from GW's particular design. What I'm getting at, is that GW may have copyrighted the specific designs (and, as pointed out earlier ITT, the Pop ones look almost identical to the Forge World heresy era transfers) that are being used by this third party.
Is it just the shoulder pads with icons that are being targeted? Or are the stand-alone icons also being removed?
As I see it, the shoulder pads with icons are likely infringing as they are clearly recognizable as Space Marine shoulder pads that GW already makes, even if the shape of the icon is slightly different. Stand-alone icons are likely not infringing even if they're shaped to fit a Space Marine shoulder pad as they are generic enough to be distinct from 40k as an intellectual property.
Which doesn't support GW's claim that they own it any more strongly. If GW cannot claim ownership of "geometric fist in circle" then it goes no further.
Conceivably they could argue the "likely to confuse" angle, but that didn't work in the CHS case and I can't see anything different here.
Is GW claiming ownership of the "Fist in a circle" symbol in this instance?
I thought POp's stuff was being removed without explantion, is there confirmation that GW is behind this?
Why ask me? I'd suggest taking that up with the OP, but I'd suggest it's fairly obvious that the whole discussion is taking place on the assumption that it is GW.
But I'm pretty sure you're only in a position to petition for removal of infringing items anywhere if you own the design in question, or in GW's case claim you do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Is it just the shoulder pads with icons that are being targeted? Or are the stand-alone icons also being removed?
As I see it, the shoulder pads with icons are likely infringing as they are clearly recognizable as Space Marine shoulder pads that GW already makes, even if the shape of the icon is slightly different. Stand-alone icons are likely not infringing even if they're shaped to fit a Space Marine shoulder pad as they are generic enough to be distinct from 40k as an intellectual property.
IIRCGW tried this during CHS, and it was deemed too simple a shape to be protectable, and making compatible parts for an existing kit wasn't an infringement.
Why ask me? I'd suggest taking that up with the OP, but I'd suggest it's fairly obvious that the whole discussion is taking place on the assumption that it is GW.
The OP does not claim GW is behind the removal, but your post that I quoted does.
I was asking for clarification, as it has not been obvious to me up until now that GW is behind this, or that the discussion was taking place with that assumption in mind.
Up until now I think the anecdote provided by MeanGreenStompa is a better fit to the situation than another Chapterhouse case, but there is not enough information on the dilemma for me to be sure.
It still remains that it seems highly unlikely that someone can petition for something to be taken down on behalf of another party, if it was indeed a third party that originated the complaint, it seems logical that complaint should be made to GW, who would then be the ones to act on it.
If anyone can get something taken down, irrespective of their ownership of the IP, that strikes me as a reallly shaky foundation for the system.
Azreal13 wrote: It still remains that it seems highly unlikely that someone can petition for something to be taken down on behalf of another party, if it was indeed a third party that originated the complaint, it seems logical that complaint should be made to GW, who would then be the ones to act on it.
If anyone can get something taken down, irrespective of their ownership of the IP, that strikes me as a reallly shaky foundation for the system.
Maybe, although their copyright infringement is at least partly automated, the reasons given for a user reporting a video don't include "copyright infringement." They do provide an "infringes my rights" option, but I believe that's intended for civil or human, rather than copy, and still contains the operative word "my."
The OP does not claim GW is behind the removal, but your post that I quoted does.
I was asking for clarification, as it has not been obvious to me up until now that GW is behind this, or that the discussion was taking place with that assumption in mind.
I sent a message to Pop Goes The Monkey on Facebook and he confirmed that it is GW behind the takedown effort and not another party.
I honestly think producing shoulders for the likes of the BA, DA, SW, AL etc is pretty openly pissing on GW's chips and a fair target, if it was GW.
The other stuff, providing niche, like the Owl pattern shoulders for Mentor Legion (which I'm intending to pick up in large numbers myself), is providing a great service to the hobby community and I am hopeful that sort of thing won't be taken down, the fact it's not been a full takedown or a carpet bombing cease and desist means perhaps that if it is GW, they're only concerning themselves with taking away his obvious direct competition stuff, rather than his complimentary stuff and leaving him to continue to do business rather than nuke him from orbit as they used to.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I honestly think producing shoulders for the likes of the BA, DA, SW, AL etc is pretty openly pissing on GW's chips and a fair target, if it was GW.
The other stuff, providing niche, like the Owl pattern shoulders for Mentor Legion (which I'm intending to pick up in large numbers myself), is providing a great service to the hobby community and I am hopeful that sort of thing won't be taken down, the fact it's not been a full takedown or a carpet bombing cease and desist means perhaps that if it is GW, they're only concerning themselves with taking away his obvious direct competition stuff, rather than his complimentary stuff and leaving him to continue to do business rather than nuke him from orbit as they used to.
I think the stuff that's much, much more generic (Like the raptor heads that he calls "Mentors") is safer than things like the clearly-Alpha-Legion stuff. Of course, the Carcharodon icon is an interesting one, as no-one owns sharks or the rights to make them rampant.
Spoiler:
Of course, naming them "Carcharodon", while technically correct, he might have been better served calling them "Shark Rampant" and showing them as a white design on, say, red. While I know colour doesn't technically matter, if it were to go to a jury trial, then making them appear even slightly more different on his webstore couldn't hurt.
Azreal13 wrote: Which is utterly irrelevant if the design is deemed unprotectable.
You cannot infringe a copyright that isn't held.
I guess, I'm not versed in UK IP law (or any at all). It's still going to raise an eyebrow if you do the exact same thing and market it as the same thing, though.
Some things are so generic that they will never be copyrightable, something like the Fists clenched fist may have some technical details that mark it as it's own thing, but the concept that it derives from is in use in a multitude of different ways.
GW is reaping what they've sown somewhat, you're familiar, I assume, with Moorcock's Chaos star?
I doubt that Pop Goes the Monkey will find Pro Bono representation in the same way that Chapterhouse did, but if it happened I could see much the same thing happening where some items were found in GW's favour (Khorne Runes for example) while they'd be smacked down on others like the Fist, Shark, etc while bleeding a ton more money from GW on yet another bunch of uncopyrightable, unenforcable generic concepts.
I can't remember the exact fallout from the Chapterhouse case. Was there ever a definitive list presented of things that GW claimed to own and lost? I know people keep bringing up arrows, roman numerals and halberds and so forth as examples, but a list would be very interesting to see. PGTM's 8-pointed star is still available, for example.
I looked, but there was nothing I could find without investing hours of my time. It's there somewhere I'm sure, but buried within a variety of pre and post trial documents dozens of pages long.
Remember a huge number of the items were dismissed as unenforceable before they ever reached trial, those that made it that far were the ones more contested, and CHS still won most of those.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here's an initial list of what appears to be everything GW claimed at least..
Yeah, I wasn't expecting you to rush out and find it, but it feels like there would be at least a couple of regulars here on Dakka who would have taken note.
Still, that's quite the interesting list that you did find...
The OP does not claim GW is behind the removal, but your post that I quoted does.
I was asking for clarification, as it has not been obvious to me up until now that GW is behind this, or that the discussion was taking place with that assumption in mind.
I sent a message to Pop Goes The Monkey on Facebook and he confirmed that it is GW behind the takedown effort and not another party.
Ah okay, I hope they don't start getting carried away again.
A Fist icon by itself should not be copyrightable IMO, but copyright law is also quite ridiculous at times.
If POP had used a different colour scheme with his Fist icon I would not have even thought of the Space Marine Chapter, but with the yellow and white colouring I could only think of them.
Azazelx wrote: Yeah, I wasn't expecting you to rush out and find it, but it feels like there would be at least a couple of regulars here on Dakka who would have taken note.
Still, that's quite the interesting list that you did find...
Ha! No, I'd already poked around prior to your post, I didn't mean I'd gone to look for it especially. Although that list of initial claims I did find because your post promoted me to have another look.
I'm surprised nobody made an actual list of claims that Chapterhouse won, GW won, and those that were withdrawn. I'm talking a list of claims, not simply a list of item numbers.
I think this argument gets too far into the specifics without looking at the plain fact, that Shapeways is clearly aware their services can easily be used for copyright infringement. As such I'm guessing they quickly (maybe knee jerk) respond to copyright claims/issues. If they didn't their entire business could be in danger.
So how is this any different from all the other after market kits on the market? You can find tons of 1/35th scale parts for kits out there which advertise themselves in the same way. I haven't seen Rubicon or Warlord Games going after say Company B or Heer 46. Games Workshop seem to be much, much more aggressive about after market kits that any other company I've seen in the business.
Wasn't this all cleared up years ago too? I had thought that it was ruled anyone can make after market parts for GW stuff as long as it wasn't a direct copy of their moulds? So's how much attention I pay to that company though (as well really, this comes down to them wanting to sell overpriced addon sets themselves).
Wyrmalla wrote: So how is this any different from all the other after market kits on the market? You can find tons of 1/35th scale parts for kits out there which advertise themselves in the same way. I haven't seen Rubicon or Warlord Games going after say Company B or Heer 46. Games Workshop seem to be much, much more aggressive about after market kits that any other company I've seen in the business.
The main difference is that upgrade parts for historical kits are based on something that can't be copyrighted. Both the original kit manufacturer and the upgrade manufacturer are drawing from the same source material, and neither has a greater claim to exclusive ownership of it (morally or legally). But GW does create their own IP, as derivative and unoriginal as it often is. So they have a lot more incentive to protect that IP and prevent people from exploiting their work.
I had thought that it was ruled anyone can make after market parts for GW stuff as long as it wasn't a direct copy of their moulds?
Not exactly. It was ruled that you could create parts for GW kits as long as they were new IP. IOW, you can make your own scifi rifles and say "compatible with GW space marines", but you can't make something that is clearly a bolter with a very slight difference to prevent it from being a literal copy of the mold. You can make your own shoulder pads with a wolf head (remember, the pad itself is a simple geometric shape and can't be copyrighted) because wolf heads are a broad concept that GW does not have exclusive ownership of, but you can't copy the GW Space Wolves logo exactly. Etc. Some of the products were ruled to be infringing GW's copyrights. Some weren't. It was a complete debacle for GW, but they did win on some points and the ability to make parts for GW kits is not unlimited.
They've apparently cracked down on other sellers. I went to order some Horseshoe Terminator Shoulder pads from Plokoones and they appeared to have been taken down as well.
So traveled down memory lane and browsed the CHS thread. Think I found the list in file posed by czakk.
3. Chapterhouse has been found to infringe Games Workshop’s copyrights with respect to the following forty-nine products (product numbers refer to numbering in Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits 1020 and 1021):
Selected Shoulder pads:
“Terminator pad for Exorcist Space Marine,”
“Power Armour Pad for Exorcist,”
one of the “Sawblade Shoulder Pad & Jewel” pads,
“Shoulder Pad for Serpent or Iron Snakes – Terminator,”
“Shoulder Pad for Serpent or Iron Snakes – Tactical,”
“Shoulder Pad w/ skull and flames - tactical”,
“Shoulder Pad w/ Studs and Skull for 28mm marine - Tactical”,
“Shoulder Pads for Chalice or Soul Drinker – Tactical,”
“Shoulder Pads for Chalice or Soul Drinker – Terminator,”
“Hammer of Dorn Power Armor Pad,”
“Hammer of Dorn Terminator Pad,”
“Power Armor Shoulder Pad for Scythes of the Emperor,”
“Scythes of the Emperor Terminator Shoulder Pad” (Products 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 149, 150, 153, 154);
Assault Shoulder pad with number VII and VIII, Devastator marine shoulder pad with IX and X, Tactical shoulder pad with I, II, III, IV, IV, and VI (Products 46, 47, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62);
Crested shoulder pad (Product 49);
“Generic Power Armour Shoulder Pad” and “Smooth Shoulder Pad for 28mm tactical – marine” (Products 54, 55);
“Banded Tech Pad” and “Banded Armor Pad” compatible with power armor and terminator armor (Products 68, 73, 74);
Studded rimmed shoulder pad MKV, MK I Heresy Era for 28 mm Marines “Thunder Armor” shoulder pad,
studded power armor pad for MK 5 (Products 75, 78, 80); Tervigon conversion kit (Product 37);
Skull or Chaplain Head or Bit for Power Armor (product 3);
Heresy Era Jump Pack (Product 76);
Spikey heresy heads (Product 79);
Wolf Rhino Conversion Kit #1 and Wolf Rhino Conversion Kit #2 (Products 82, 104);
Iron Snake conversion kit for Rhino (Product 106);
Doomseer Iyanar Duanna (Product 108);
Gun Halberd (Product 112);
Conversion Beamer Servo Harness (Product 113);
Armana'serq Scorpion Warrior Princess (Product 123);
Open- Fisted power claws and Closed-Fisted power claws (Products 132, 133);
TRU Scale Knights Praetorius “Order of the Empress’s Tears” Conversion Kit and TRU-Scale Knight Praetorius Conversion Kit (Products 142, 143);
“Shrike Conversion Kit” (Product 159); Dark Elf Arch Torturess (Product 160).
*edit*
some more items CHS didn't infringe on:
9. The Court previously found that Chapterhouse did not infringe Games Workshop copyrights in connection with the following thirty-four products:
Shoulder Pads for Deathwatch or Dark Angels – Tactical (Product 8);
Shoulder Pads for Imperial Fist (Tactical and Terminator) (Products 15–16);
Dragon or Salamander Shoulder Pad (Tactical and Terminator) (Products 25–26);
Dragon or Salamander Storm Shield (Diamond Scales, Smooth No Skull and Smooth w/Skull) (Products 28–30);
Salamander, Alpha Legion or Dragon Conversion Kit for Land Raider (Product 32);
Vehicle Icon for Flesh Tearers (Product 33);
Lashwhips (Tyrant Size and Warrior Size) (Products 39-39);
Bonesword Arms for Tryanids (Tyrant and Warrior) (Products 40-41);
Xenomorph 28mm Head Bits for Tyranid (Product 42);
Female Heads Imperial Guard 28mm (Product 44);
Shield for Iron Hands (Product 70);
Shoulder Pad for Iron Hands (Power Armor and Terminator) (Products 71-72);
Celtic Wolf Shield for Space Wolves (Product 81);
Celtic Storm or Combat Shield (Product 84);
Generic Hammer 2 (Product 85);
Imperial or Eagle Storm Shield (Product 86);
Armoured Predator Armour Kit (Side and Center) (Products 88–89);
Brazier (Dragon/Serpent [2 pieces] and Eagle [2 pieces]) (Products 91-92);
Mark I Rhino Conversion Kit (Product 93);
Pre-Heresy Scarab Shoulder Pads – Thousand Sons – Terminator (Product 96),
Shoulder Pad for Mantis Warriors Marines (Power Armor and Terminator) (Products 99-100);
Tactical Rhino Doors with Skulls Kit (Product 105);
28 mm Spartan Heads (Product 107);
Rapid Response Wheeled Kit for Chimera (aka Imperial Guards Chimera APC Kit) (Product 109).
Some of the items that have been pulled are on this list. POGTM has full right to go after GW for messing with them.
I don't know if anyone has touched on this, but in this kind of case it doesn't really matter if GW could win in court or not. Just the threat of legal action from a company of their size could be enough to entice a service like Shapeways to appease them, even if there isn't really a legal basis for their claims. Sometimes it's better to cave than to spend years in court spending thousands and thousands of dollars, even if you'd eventually win.
SeanDrake wrote: Well that did not take long for the mask to slip.
He should call there bluff and tell them he will see them in the UK courts. You would hear the collective bowel movement from Nottingham to the US.
GW resorting to bullying and false claims of copyright it's like the Dark Lord never left.
This is not a repeat of Spots the Spacemarine, so it is not that bad yet.
Plus unless I am mistaken, Anglo copyright law encourages this sort of thing.
Only if you actually have the copyright.
Besides in UK law it is debatable if they actually have any protection on most of there stuff which is why they will not fight in the UK/EU courts.
There is a very good chance that in the UK they would be protected by design rights which is much more limited protection than copyright.
This is the reason they stopped making toy soldiers and started making artistic collectables. But if they ended up in court there is a very high chance that would be laughed at and ignored.
Design rights last a maximum of 25yrs and that's only if GW registered for them (They did not) so 20yrs is most likely. Anyone can ask at anytime for a licence to produce protected stuff and the owner can decline, except for the last 5 years where they are legally required to give a licence.
Hence why GW desperately don't want to end up with a UK ruling and why Primaris exist(how old are mini marines again).
Luciferian wrote: I don't know if anyone has touched on this, but in this kind of case it doesn't really matter if GW could win in court or not. Just the threat of legal action from a company of their size could be enough to entice a service like Shapeways to appease them, even if there isn't really a legal basis for their claims. Sometimes it's better to cave than to spend years in court spending thousands and thousands of dollars, even if you'd eventually win.
If Pop were doing this on his own, he'd probably be able to stand up to GW, at least on some things. Shapeways has no interest in being dragged into litigation on someone else's behalf so Pop needs to do what he can to immunize himself from copyright complaints, like designing icons that a customer would buy and then glue to a model instead of designing replacement parts that include an integrated icon that has a direct counterpart to something GW makes (Imperial Fists shoulder pads, for example).
