Spikey Bits, I know but still, looks like GW forgot that the Chapterhouse case showed having "similar to but not identical" 40k things is perfectly legit as long as you don't try to claim they are GW products. This company is one of the worst I've ever seen with their anti-consumer tactics, worse than EA or Blizzard
Indeed, sellers using Warhammer branding to promote their stores and products. Oh wait, that's using a copyrighted IP that they don't own to promote a non-GW product which could give the impression these are GW sanctioned products.
Why would a company want to stop those I wonder?
Big deal over nothing. Don't use branding that isn't yours, don't get lawsuits. Seems pretty easy to me and SpikeyBitz is farming the Internet rage because it hasn't been relevant since 2010.
I'm into 3D printing enough that I've seen a good few challenges and so far GW has honestly been pretty tame.
Their claims typically come with specific infringing elements which can be reworked to remove them.
Often when you see things vanish its because they were either a carbon copy of a GW model anyway or the infringing parts were so integral that reworking isn't worth the cost/time. Or they loaded up something totally safe with a whole host of GW copyright terms/names/logos
Suffice it to say many of these firms know what they are doing. Using GW logos/symbols/phrases/terms - heck I even saw one doing chibi-style models using full GW brand colouring and lettering.
This is GW's bread and butter earning sector. If you copy it be prepared for the legal. It doesn't mean GW is in the right every single time; they can overstretch or there are situations where you can push back ;but in general many of these claims are legitimate.
And yeah Spiky has been trolling for articles for ages. They are well into the "hate on GW for the clicks" sector of marketing.
Seems like an odd place to file your suit, especially for a British company.
Chapterhouse lawsuit was filed in Texas, so it's not uncommon for them. Apparently they are going after 3d printers who offer services, for printing STLS that someone else got that happened to be one of those "cloned" GW ones (rather than distinct). Which is bs because the 3d printers aren't usually checking every STL to make sure it's legit; someone says "I need you to print this STL I bought" and that's that.
Seems like an odd place to file your suit, especially for a British company.
Chapterhouse lawsuit was filed in Texas, so it's not uncommon for them. Apparently they are going after 3d printers who offer services, for printing STLS that someone else got that happened to be one of those "cloned" GW ones (rather than distinct). Which is bs because the 3d printers aren't usually checking every STL to make sure it's legit; someone says "I need you to print this STL I bought" and that's that.
Actually "please print this STL I bought" firms won't get hit at all because that's a service where they don't have to display the model that was printed anywhere. The customer comes with a file; the printer prints it and sends over the model - done.
The ones GW are hitting are those who ARE advertising models directly for sale themselves. And honestly yes I do expect a store selling products in a niche market to be aware of what they are selling and its potential legality. This isn't rocket science this is basic copyright.
and besides, feth GW. Imagine simping for a garbage company that is anti-consumer. fething pathetic.
I mean it seems like you just want to be angry at GW for the sake of it.
This isn't anti-consumer this is basic copyright/trademark protection that any firm would be expected to undertake. If people were ripping off Infinity, Warmachine or other smaller wargame brands to the same extent as is happening to GW you'd expect those firms to also take appropriate action as well.
Wayniac wrote: Apparently they are going after 3d printers who offer services, for printing STLS that someone else got that happened to be one of those "cloned" GW ones (rather than distinct). Which is bs because the 3d printers aren't usually checking every STL to make sure it's legit; someone says "I need you to print this STL I bought" and that's that.
"I didn't check if the thing I made for you was a copyright infringement" is unlikely to be an effective legal defence. Back when I worked in a photo development lab, we were legally not allowed to reprint professional photographs if they were still in copyright. It was up to us as the service provider to not provide that service if the end product would have been an infringement.
I'm not surprised if garage printing services haven't thought about the potential ramifications before now, but if I were in that business I would absolutely refuse to print anything that looks like a GW mini.
For the rest of it, it's difficult to say if any of the examples that SB listed of potential over-reach actually are or not without details. The paint rack slapped for using the word 'citadel' for example... it's the difference between them selling a rack that can hold Citadel paint pots, and selling it as a Citadel paint rack. The Chapterhouse suit clarified that the former is fine, the latter is an infringement.
I'm affected in this lawsuit, and it's not just "GW copies" that are targeted here.
In Germany, there's the §23 MarkenG (and similar stuff in other EU countries), which specifically allows you to use a third party trademark to mark your product compatible with said third party trademark. So lots of these listings on the
lawsuit have used something along the lines of "compatible with Warhammer", "compatible with Citadel paint pots" etc.
If the use of a third party trademark is indeed allowed or not, is decided on a case to case basis, but it most certainly should not be lumped into a single lawsuit in the USA of all places. GW states in their court documents, that the defendants are at risk of ditching their online identiy and adapting a new one (because we're all classified as Chinese recasters it seems, not registered businesses with attached business adresses), so it was filed in secret until stores were locked down and assets frozen.
This may be the right course of action for recasters, but on the list are also
-proxy models
-gaming mats
-neodym magnets
-movement trays
-paint accessories
-cosplay props
-individualised gaming controllers
and besides, feth GW. Imagine simping for a garbage company that is anti-consumer. fething pathetic.
I mean it seems like you just want to be angry at GW for the sake of it.
This isn't anti-consumer this is basic copyright/trademark protection that any firm would be expected to undertake. If people were ripping off Infinity, Warmachine or other smaller wargame brands to the same extent as is happening to GW you'd expect those firms to also take appropriate action as well.
Pretty much this. I'm no fan of companies throwing their weight around and filing frivolous lawsuits but I'm also generally in favour of the right to protect your IP. This is early stages by the looks of it. Assuming this was a lawsuit filed to obtain a temporary injunction it will have been looked at by a judge, which will prevent most of the more egregious abuses of the legal system (not all, sadly). If it's more a case of going straight to Etsy, web hosts etc then that's a problem with how the law works in these cases and the default reaction for hosts being to remove the allegedly offending content.
If pointing out that there may be many legitimate reasons why GW have filed this suit is "simping" then I think your worldview might be too skewed to make any rational judgements here.
Enforcement will be an issue. Unless this is an attempt to beat down Etsy and Shopify stores, I can't see how this will affect Russian and Chinese storefronts.
Hi all, I’m a UK England resident and recently received an email from a US law firm (Brickell IP Group) saying I’ve been named as a defendant in a US trademark lawsuit (Games Workshop Ltd. v. Schedule A, Case No. 25-cv-21746, filed in Florida). The claim is based on a handful of AI-generated t-shirt designs I sold on Etsy last year. The designs were inspired by Warhammer/Doom themes but were original and created in good faith. I made only 14 sales, with total revenue under £300 and an estimated profit of about £100, which I donated the majority to small local animal charities.
My Etsy account has since been permanently deleted, and I’ve had no involvement in anything related to this since January. I’ve contacted their attorney twice asking to be removed from the claim, with no response. I’ve also spoken with a US lawyer who’s helping me draft a letter asking for dismissal.
My questions are:
Has anyone seen a US IP judgment ever enforced in the UK under these circumstances?
Is there any real legal risk in just ignoring this entirely, given the scale and my location?
Can a US company even pursue me for damages like this in the UK if I’ve never done business there?
Would love to hear from anyone with experience or insight. Thanks in advance.
On account when it comes to law, t’internet is the worst place you could go to solicit random advice.
Second worst being that old steadfast “The Man In The Pub”.
And I say this as someone with a now 13 year long career in a legal adjacent role.
That defeats my Family Law Paralegal degree.
In all seriousness, the person in question needs a specialist in Federal Civil Law. Because in the US we have the evil (post 9/11) Commerce Clause, where most of (all of - in Puerto Rico) crimes/torts can be easily construed as federal crimes/torts and selling products on the internet are equal to showing up on that person's doorstep and selling the item in person... even if you've never been there personally.
*This is not legal advice. Non-lawyers in the US cannot give legal advice (unless incarcerated - thanks Jailhouse Lawyers Act!).
I'm immediately suspicious of 'I never did nothing wrong. In fact I hardly sold anything. And if I did sell things infringing GW's IP, I didn't make a profit. And if I did make a profit I gave it all to charity' as a story.
people try to make quick money with Warhammer because GW is too expensive and doesn't provide everything to everyone regarding the hobby
some do it more professional than others, and some just do it because everyone is doing it and making a Warhammer AI art to sell T-shirts is an easy way to get some money without bad intentions
and simply mentioning "warhammer" instead of "wargaming" will increase sales for a generic product because GW themselves pushed the term "warhammer hobby" in a way that it replaced to more generic terms long time ago.
so nothing new here, but it gets a little more interesting with GW as they have usually have something going on behind the scenes if they are going big with this (and it is not just this lawsuit but also copyright strikes on Youtube)
so my guess would be that this is related to their Amazon deal going forward and they are just cleaning things up before it goes public
or one if their upcoming releases is something bigger and close to stuff one of those people is selling (and it is easier to get out a broad copyright claim against everyone instead of going after a specific small business)
Seems like an odd place to file your suit, especially for a British company.
I'm not a US attorney, but I am a lawyer. I understand that GW are making use of a procedural mechanism available in US federal district courts. This enables an IP owner to target a wide range of online IP infringers cost-effectively, by short-circuiting a lot of the procedural steps normally required when suing someone. They can then go after targets even though they don't know their true identities or locations - so it's particularly useful for pursing people in China. The allegations can be quite broadly framed, and it is all done 'ex parte', so that the first the defendants know about it is when their business is frozen. That's how GW got restraining orders and was able to freeze funds. The online marketplaces that facilitate the infringers will normally comply with these orders, and thus effectively shut down the infringers. However, a side effect of this procedure is that there is collateral damage, because it sweeps up innocent people as well as actual infringers. It's a kind of 'shoot first and ask questions later' approach.
lord_blackfang wrote: We all know only British garage firms like Heresy and Hasslefree are allowed to blatantly steal IP all over the place.
Not at all. Anyone can do what Heresy and Hasslefree do. Producing a figure that looks like a character from a tv show is not an infringement. Producing a figure that looks like a character and calling it that character's name is more problematic, as is producing figures that look like someone else's figures.
GW HAS to protect its IP.
It has a legal obligation to do so.
The professionals that GW instruct have an obligation to their client to pursue such claims.
Seems like an odd place to file your suit, especially for a British company.
Chapterhouse lawsuit was filed in Texas, so it's not uncommon for them. Apparently they are going after 3d printers who offer services, for printing STLS that someone else got that happened to be one of those "cloned" GW ones (rather than distinct). Which is bs because the 3d printers aren't usually checking every STL to make sure it's legit; someone says "I need you to print this STL I bought" and that's that.
If you're going to bring suit in the USA, you have to file out of somewhere and Florida and Texas are known to have business-friendly judiciaries.
Seems like an odd place to file your suit, especially for a British company.
Chapterhouse lawsuit was filed in Texas, so it's not uncommon for them. Apparently they are going after 3d printers who offer services, for printing STLS that someone else got that happened to be one of those "cloned" GW ones (rather than distinct). Which is bs because the 3d printers aren't usually checking every STL to make sure it's legit; someone says "I need you to print this STL I bought" and that's that.
If you're going to bring suit in the USA, you have to file out of somewhere and Florida and Texas are known to have business-friendly judiciaries.
Wasn't Chapterhouse based in Texas? I think I got parcels from them with that return address..
Trademarks yes, but they are also wrapped up with the IP and Copyright plus they likely have requirements under their company rules and shareholders to also protect things.
Plus they've outside contracts with firms like Warner that also likely come with requirements too.
Indeed, but you might lose shareholders (major ones) or investors if they think that you're not taking proper steps to protect the brand they are investing into.
So whilst it might not be a legal requirement to keep your IP, there are other very good reasons to still take steps to protect it.
Plus the two can easily be wrapped up together such as models that are infringing on IP which are also using trademark names
Overread wrote: Indeed, but you might lose shareholders (major ones) or investors if they think that you're not taking proper steps to protect the brand they are investing into.
So whilst it might not be a legal requirement to keep your IP, there are other very good reasons to still take steps to protect it.
Plus the two can easily be wrapped up together such as models that are infringing on IP which are also using trademark names
I should have said Trademarks. My bad.
I assume that IP in GW’s case means products made and sold from works it has created or owns the rights to.
Legally. Plc in the UK have to make every effort to uphold the value of the business on behalf of shareholder/stakeholders.
Licensing has its own issues with regards to protection as well.
In the Battletech community we already have the first collateral victim. No Guts, No Galaxy has been hit by the lawsuit, because nobody before GW used the word warhammer ever.
M.
Edit: NG,NG sells a magnet with the word Warhammer on it, and wait for it, the image of the battletech Warhammer nothing to do with GW at all. WARHAMMER (all capitals) is a trademark registered by GW, but go tell the difference to the paralegal or even worse the AI used to look for posible culprits.
lord_blackfang wrote: We all know only British garage firms like Heresy and Hasslefree are allowed to blatantly steal IP all over the place.
Not at all. Anyone can do what Heresy and Hasslefree do. Producing a figure that looks like a character from a tv show is not an infringement. Producing a figure that looks like a character and calling it that character's name is more problematic, as is producing figures that look like someone else's figures.
I'd like to be clear on this
Designing a character, say, The Predator, is not copyrightable and any British garage sculptor can legally sculpt a Predator and sell it as long as they call it Alien Hunter Man
But the second British garage sculptor to sculpt a Predator is breaking the law because the first British garage sculptor who sculpted a Predator now owns the shape of the Predator (but the person who designed the Predator and put it on film does not...?)
It's complicated. But has to do with the type of work involved.
The person who designed the Predator owns the copyright to the work they create, but there are limitations to how that can be applied. Someone else creating a movie featuring a character that looks like the Predator would probably be an infringement. Creating a sculpture that looks like a Predator, so long as you don't call it a Predator, is generally not an infringement, particularly if it is not a direct duplicate of the version from the movie. There is no doubt a much better way that someone with actually IP qualifications could explain it, but in very simplistic terms, copying the visual characteristics of a character in a different medium is not the same as creating a copy in the same medium.
This was one of the things GW got slapped down on in the Chapterhouse case, as they tried to claim copyright on 3rd party miniatures based on artwork that they had never produced their own miniatures for, and were told it doesn't work that way. Which was the reason that GW's artwork all suddenly shifted to directly mirroring the models post-Chapterhouse. Making a model based on GW's artwork is not an infringement. Making a model that looks like a GW model potentially is. So, if you only produce artwork that you have a corresponding model for, you shut the door for 3rd party sculpts.
Similarly, Heresy and Hasslefree producing models that look like TV characters is fine so long as they don't use those characters' actual names. If another company had a license to produce, say, a Scooby Do game and Hasslefree's models looked like theirs? Then there's a potential problem.
Miguelsan wrote: In the Battletech community we already have the first collateral victim. No Guts, No Galaxy has been hit by the lawsuit, because nobody before GW used the word warhammer ever.
M.
Edit: NG,NG sells a magnet with the word Warhammer on it, and wait for it, the image of the battletech Warhammer nothing to do with GW at all. WARHAMMER (all capitals) is a trademark registered by GW, but go tell the difference to the paralegal or even worse the AI used to look for posible culprits.
I think the mass AI generated IP lawsuits if you can simply name as many companies as you like are going to become a real problem.
Sounds like basically the same gak that's already been going on for years on Youtube, predatory firms just copyright claiming everything en masse and the onus is always on the video creator to prove they own everything in the video, otherwise all ad revenue goes to the one who issued the claim.
I've seen some of the people involved reach out for sympathy on Reddit and subsequently be torn apart as, unsurprisingly, there were multiple obvious infringements they're committing.
I've no doubt there are some innocents in the crossfire but I'd hope they're in the minority and GW do right by them, as I'd heard they had some money put aside for wrongful identification or something to the effect?
GW doesn't want to get into legal fights they can't win and certainly doesn't want to get into legal fights that they've no actual leg to stand on.
Also sometimes these mass-wipeouts aren't a case of the parent firm (GW) directly sending takedowns but a firm like GW telling a second firm (like Etsy) to "takedown everything that relates to us with X terms on it".
So stuff gets caught in the crossfire because its just a blanket shot at everything using certain terms or such rather than targeted. Then firms sort it out after
well, in this case GW hired a company to get this done in Florida as one of the few states were this is possible
that wasn't a case that GW wasn't aware of it they knew exactly what they wanted and were to get it
Dudeface wrote: as I'd heard they had some money put aside for wrongful identification or something to the effect?
they have to, as that specific law requires to set a compensation aside for those who are hit by accident
Overread wrote: GW doesn't want to get into legal fights they can't win and certainly doesn't want to get into legal fights that they've no actual leg to stand on.
But they are perfectly fine with sending out letters that amount to precisely "Either spend thousands in legal fees to prove we have no leg to stand on or stop making your version of swole dudes with big pauldrons"
No, we are talking about shops using the term "Warhammer", something GW has no copyright on, and even the trademark is limited to "WARHAMMER"
one of those shops used AI art selling under the Warhammer tag for quick money
another was selling add ons for Battletech models (which one of them being a Warhammer)
problem is that under this specific lawsuit are so many different shops/persons (280 are named in the lawsuit) that the <50 examples we know don't tell us enough to know how targeted this is (and there might be still people who don't know that they are sued or for what)
could also be that those that were rightfully caught are the exceptions
you cannot lose an IP if you don't defend it, just a trademark
some countries don't even allow selling or transferring an IP because of that
and this lawsuit isn't about the IP, it is about trademark infringement
so for everyone using the original Warhammer 40k logo in their advertising, this is a legal claim from GW for everyone who made Citadel paint holders it is not
as it is not for anyone who advertise their products as "compatible with Warhammer XY"
for those making 40k cosplay items, it is a grey area as there is not trademark violation for selling a live sized Space Marine helmet
and I don't know whatever Baron of Dice has done to get on that list
for everyone who made Citadel paint holders it is not
as it is not for anyone who advertise their products as "compatible with Warhammer XY"
Again, selling a 'Citadel paint holder' would be an infringement, because it potentially misleads people to think it's a GW produced product. Selling a paint holder that holds Citadel paints would not, assuming it doesn't copy someone else's design and is clear that it is not a licensed product.
and I don't know whatever Baron of Dice has done to get on that list
I would guess it's the collection of dice using 40k faction logos.
However when it comes to enforcement many places will now enforce on tags/description terms when doing a carpetbomb/blanket ban because some people will copy a GW model and then only list in the tags the copyright names.
So for that reason innocent "compatible with" creators who are totally legal - get hit. Because those who are not legitimate have been trying to hide the terms in the tags/descriptions instead of the title.
Yeah, tags add a layer of complication. Tagging a paint rack with 'Citadel' because it fits GW paints would still be potentially misleading. Tagging it as 'Citadel Compatible' would be clearer, but would probably still (rightly or wrongly) get caught up in the sort of keyword-based net this lawsuit is likely using.
kodos wrote: and I don't know whatever Baron of Dice has done to get on that list
Just a guess, but a quick glance at the 40k section on the website and I'm looking at straight up copies of the Slaanesh symbol, EC Legion badge, Ulthwe rune, and Iron Hands Avernii badge. So like, maybe it's the stolen assets?
and I don't know whatever Baron of Dice has done to get on that list
Which kind of calls into question everything else you've written.
A quick glance at their sci-fi dice (a nice, generic, non-infringing term) shows literally dozens of sets of dice using trademarked faction symbols. Emperor's Children, Night Lords, Alpha Legion, Word Bearers, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Blood Angels, Salamanders, Dark Angels, Black Templars, Space Wolves, Ultramarines, Sisters, Ad Mech...
It seems to be a textbook attempt to avoid listing actually trademarks in descriptions (Dark Prince, Diseased Dice, etc) while blatantly using trademarked symbols on the dice themselves, which is kind of telling in and of itself.
and I don't know whatever Baron of Dice has done to get on that list
Which kind of calls into question everything else you've written.
A quick glance at their sci-fi dice (a nice, generic, non-infringing term) shows literally dozens of sets of dice using trademarked faction symbols. Emperor's Children, Night Lords, Alpha Legion, Word Bearers, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Blood Angels, Salamanders, Dark Angels, Black Templars, Space Wolves, Ultramarines, Sisters, Ad Mech...
It seems to be a textbook attempt to avoid listing actually trademarks in descriptions (Dark Prince, Diseased Dice, etc) while blatantly using trademarked symbols on the dice themselves, which is kind of telling in and of itself.
Does GW actually have those symbols trademarked? or are they just claiming they do like they claimed a bunch of crap in the Chapterhouse suit they had no ownership of but just tried to throw their muscle around.
Registering a trademark isn't actually required in order to claim ownership of it, it just makes it easier. They have to show that they were using that trademark and that someone else copying it damages their business.
The Chapterhouse case went to silly extremes with GW claiming ownership of things like chevrons and roman numerals, and those claims were (IIRC) unsuccessful. But they would have a much easier time of showing ownership of specific faction symbols.
I am honestly pretty annoyed about the No Guts No Galaxy thing, the lack of effort on the GW legal team's side to check if their claims were even valid and the dodgy way the lawsuit was filed, really don't sit well.
And as much as I like Baron of Dice... I was wondering how long he was going to get away with what he was doing. The Battletech dice I have from him have Battletech art and mech designs lifted straight from the source material on the tins.
I have interacted with the owner through emails and online communication, and he is a genuinely nice person, but there is no way he didn't know that he was lifting art and designs from GW and other companies.
And as much as I like Baron of Dice... I was wondering how long he was going to get away with what he was doing. The Battletech dice I have from him have Battletech art and mech designs lifted straight from the source material on the tins.
It's hard to claim ownership of the Maltese Cross (aka the Templar Cross), due to it existing for hundreds of years, but it is easier to claim ownership of specifically created Warhammer-centric designs like the Dark Angels broken sword with angel wings.
That's why the Aquila used in Warhammer is always the same and differs from Aquilas used by the Roman Republic/Empire and other Organizations throughout time.
this might be different for the US so please correct me, but for a symbol/logo to be trademarked it must be with the context of the company and naming
Apple cannot sue me for showing an apple with a part missing for my home grown fruit buisness
but they can sue me if I show a 2D shape of an apple with a part missing to sell electronics
Baron of Dice doesn't use any of the legal names and the symbols I have seen aren't excatly like the original
which is important because as far as we know, this was triggered by the use of trademarked names or advertising with trademarked names and not about pictures of similar looking symbols
claiming that shops use trademarked terms in the text or meta tags to trigger search egines and mislead consumers to believe those are original or licensed GW products
I can't find any open document to check which trademarks in specific are claimed to be violated but it looks like that Baron of Dice is appearing in court for this (and not just paying the fee for dismisal) so we should get the details anyway
PS:
I have seen that there is an identical file with different judge but same dates in Texas
are those 2 different at the same time lawsuits?
Baron of Dice got hit for a gaming mat that was labelled as "for Warhammer 40k, Age of Sigmar, [multiple other game systems]"
So NOT for any symbols.
GW is going after the use of the word "Warhammer" (in its various forms), "Citadel" and "Blood Bowl" and don't care how you labelled your product, just that you used the trademarked term. We can condemn the use of the AI art on shirts, but that's not what this is about.
The paint pot holder was labelled "for Citadel paint pots".
Hanskrampf wrote: Baron of Dice got hit for a gaming mat that was labelled as "for Warhammer 40k, Age of Sigmar, [multiple other game systems]"
So NOT for any symbols.
GW is going after the use of the word "Warhammer" (in its various forms), "Citadel" and "Blood Bowl" and don't care how you labelled your product, just that you used the trademarked term. We can condemn the use of the AI art on shirts, but that's not what this is about.
The paint pot holder was labelled "for Citadel paint pots".
I get these are the more renowned stores hence getting the attention, but of several hundred hit I'm pretty sure the majority are valid. Fussing over the minority caught in the mayhem appears like people are devaluing the valid claims which are in the majority AFAIK.
you could also assume the other way around as I know more specific examples of claims that are not legit
yet the specific examples aren't available for the public, so I don't know enough to say if the majority is legit or not (and for everyone who hasn't the money to fly to Florida and appear in court, we will never know)
Nobody knows how many of the claims are valid, your assumption on that will depend entirely on how much blind faith you have in the system in general and the honesty of one corporation with a documented history of unfounded claims in particular.
Hanskrampf wrote: Baron of Dice got hit for a gaming mat that was labelled as "for Warhammer 40k, Age of Sigmar, [multiple other game systems]"
So NOT for any symbols.
GW is going after the use of the word "Warhammer" (in its various forms), "Citadel" and "Blood Bowl" and don't care how you labelled your product, just that you used the trademarked term. We can condemn the use of the AI art on shirts, but that's not what this is about.
The paint pot holder was labelled "for Citadel paint pots".
Wait didn't the chapterhouse case show you COULD say that, just not present them as though they were official GW products? As in it was perfectly legal to say "Compatible with Warhammer 40,000 XYZ" but not simply "Warhammer 40,00 XYZ" which could mislead someone into thinking it was an official GW product? Wasn't that like the whole fething point of that case and why GW started "no model, no rules"?
Hanskrampf wrote: Baron of Dice got hit for a gaming mat that was labelled as "for Warhammer 40k, Age of Sigmar, [multiple other game systems]"
So NOT for any symbols.
GW is going after the use of the word "Warhammer" (in its various forms), "Citadel" and "Blood Bowl" and don't care how you labelled your product, just that you used the trademarked term. We can condemn the use of the AI art on shirts, but that's not what this is about.
The paint pot holder was labelled "for Citadel paint pots".
Wait didn't the chapterhouse case show you COULD say that, just not present them as though they were official GW products? As in it was perfectly legal to say "Compatible with Warhammer 40,000 XYZ" but not simply "Warhammer 40,00 XYZ" which could mislead someone into thinking it was an official GW product? Wasn't that like the whole fething point of that case and why GW started "no model, no rules"?
It doesn't matter.The lawsuit comes with a temporary restraining order freezing all connected assets unless you pay up. Or good luck to keep everything running until the hearing before the judge in the US. GW targeted mostly non-US entities on purpose, hoping that they don't show up and get a default judgement.
Now you get why I quoted the article earlier on pg 1 that calls it a legal extortion scheme. GW doesn't need to win the case to ruin people.
Hanskrampf wrote: Baron of Dice got hit for a gaming mat that was labelled as "for Warhammer 40k, Age of Sigmar, [multiple other game systems]"
So NOT for any symbols.
GW is going after the use of the word "Warhammer" (in its various forms), "Citadel" and "Blood Bowl" and don't care how you labelled your product, just that you used the trademarked term. We can condemn the use of the AI art on shirts, but that's not what this is about.
The paint pot holder was labelled "for Citadel paint pots".
I get these are the more renowned stores hence getting the attention, but of several hundred hit I'm pretty sure the majority are valid. Fussing over the minority caught in the mayhem appears like people are devaluing the valid claims which are in the majority AFAIK.
There's maybe 100 China recasters on the list. The 180 other people at least deserve to get the benefit of the doubt.
and I don't know whatever Baron of Dice has done to get on that list
Which kind of calls into question everything else you've written.
A quick glance at their sci-fi dice (a nice, generic, non-infringing term) shows literally dozens of sets of dice using trademarked faction symbols. Emperor's Children, Night Lords, Alpha Legion, Word Bearers, Thousand Sons, Death Guard, Blood Angels, Salamanders, Dark Angels, Black Templars, Space Wolves, Ultramarines, Sisters, Ad Mech...
It seems to be a textbook attempt to avoid listing actually trademarks in descriptions (Dark Prince, Diseased Dice, etc) while blatantly using trademarked symbols on the dice themselves, which is kind of telling in and of itself.
Does GW actually have those symbols trademarked? or are they just claiming they do like they claimed a bunch of crap in the Chapterhouse suit they had no ownership of but just tried to throw their muscle around.
Not all of them, but some like the main Marine chapter badges absolutely are.
Hanskrampf wrote: Baron of Dice got hit for a gaming mat that was labelled as "for Warhammer 40k, Age of Sigmar, [multiple other game systems]"
So NOT for any symbols.
GW is going after the use of the word "Warhammer" (in its various forms), "Citadel" and "Blood Bowl" and don't care how you labelled your product, just that you used the trademarked term. We can condemn the use of the AI art on shirts, but that's not what this is about.
The paint pot holder was labelled "for Citadel paint pots".
I get these are the more renowned stores hence getting the attention, but of several hundred hit I'm pretty sure the majority are valid. Fussing over the minority caught in the mayhem appears like people are devaluing the valid claims which are in the majority AFAIK.
There's maybe 100 China recasters on the list. The 180 other people at least deserve to get the benefit of the doubt.
Why aren't we hearing of more legitimate businesses that included at this point then? Surely it'd be a smart move to apply bad PR to the situation and garner community support if they're in the right?
Because you can't pay lawyers in community support? You act as if you didn't know classic bully litigation tactics. For the majority of small time creators, the only option is to fold immediately and hope the megacorporation is merciful, regardless of who is in the right.
Mostly because you don't to that before things are sorted out.
we haven't heard anything from Baron of Dice themselves and for now it looks like they are appearing in court (and got an extansion granted to keep their shop open until that)
we have heard from a Content Creator because his case was dismissed after he got a lawyer from Florida involved, and because he makes youtube vidoes, he made a video about it afterwards
and we heard from some shops complaining how never planned to get their case dismissed (be it because they cannot afford it or know that they have no chance)
so we won't hear anything in detail especially from the legitmate buisnesses because this can have a negative inpact on their case
kodos wrote: this might be different for the US so please correct me, but for a symbol/logo to be trademarked it must be with the context of the company and naming
Apple cannot sue me for showing an apple with a part missing for my home grown fruit buisness
but they can sue me if I show a 2D shape of an apple with a part missing to sell electronics
Not quite. Some trademarks are so well known and valuable that any use, even in another industry, could be infringement.
There's a small chain of beer and hot wings restaurants near me called Frickers. I could probably open "Frickers Taxidermy" in the same state and probably be okay.. OTOH, I probably could not open "Applebees Taxidermy," since Applebees is a massive national brand and everybody immediatly thinks restaurant when they hear the word.
Not only is the Apple brand and logo so strong that anybody who sees it would think the tech company, Apple computers actually had to pay damages to Apple Records before buying the rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
This is why we can't say, start "Mercedes Airlines" or "Gucci beef jerky"
Baron of Dice doesn't use any of the legal names and the symbols I have seen aren't excatly like the original
which is important because as far as we know, this was triggered by the use of trademarked names or advertising with trademarked names and not about pictures of similar looking symbols
claiming that shops use trademarked terms in the text or meta tags to trigger search egines and mislead consumers to believe those are original or licensed GW products
Once you get into the weeds of designs being similar but not exact, you are now going to have to go to a jury. Baron of Dice is obviously trading on GW's IP. It might be legally adapting their IP, but everything Baron of Dice does to market their product makes it clear they are meant to be a riff on GW stuff.
So clearly I aren't a US lawyer, that said, is it simply the method of the case people have an issue with in reality?
The above post stipulates that BoD might even need to be concerned over the icons on dice.
I guess im asking, is this a company doing what is normal for a company of its size and its unfortunate they haven't been careful?
Are people jumping to "bad mega corporation" without considering the validity of the claims? Would it matter, do some people expect to be able to operate in a legally incorrect way?
Dudeface wrote: So clearly I aren't a US lawyer, that said, is it simply the method of the case people have an issue with in reality?
The above post stipulates that BoD might even need to be concerned over the icons on dice.
I guess im asking, is this a company doing what is normal for a company of its size and its unfortunate they haven't been careful?
Are people jumping to "bad mega corporation" without considering the validity of the claims? Would it matter, do some people expect to be able to operate in a legally incorrect way?
This is a classic "two things can be true at once" situation. Like a lot of dragnet lawsuits, this has some overreaches and some collateral damage, but I'd bet a steak dinner that the bulk of their claims are pretty valid. GW is arguably looser with it's approach to fan stuff than say, Disney.
I'm not an IP lawyer, but I don't' think GW has to defend their IP like this, but they certainly should be responsible stewards of their brand and material. Especially if they are gearing up to license stuff out for t-shirts or mats or whatever, they are going to want to shut down the bootleg stuff. A license to make GW shirts is worth way more if I'm the only one making GW shirts.
It is the method used here that is the problem (and it is not the IP, this is specific about 3rd parties using GW owned trademarks to pretend they are legitimate GW products)
GW has done several similar lawsuits in different US states the past years and no one really cared because it was a different kind of lawsuit
in this case, the benefit of the doubt is with GW, all your assets linked to your store/products are frozen (your fault if you used your private paypal/bank account for that), no matter what it is, and you have to get a lawyer in Florida and appear in court to get it dismissed
if you even got the notice that you are sued as unlike in other countries, an email is enough and the specific emails sent out were dismissed as spam and people only noticed something was up because their shops/paypal accounts were closed
(and you need to pay a lawyer to even find out why, because event he email notice wouldn't tell you what exactly your shop did wrong)
the whole thing looked legit and perfectly fine for the company protecting trademarks on the first look, it is the details that make it different, and that people on social media started to blame the company GW hired to file the case as "GW didn't want that special kind of lawsuit, it was other company that messed it up" that got the attention in the first place
Polonius wrote: Once you get into the weeds of designs being similar but not exact, you are now going to have to go to a jury. Baron of Dice is obviously trading on GW's IP. It might be legally adapting their IP, but everything Baron of Dice does to market their product makes it clear they are meant to be a riff on GW stuff.
if GW files a lawsuit because you used the term "Warhammer" wrong, it doesn't matter if there is something else you do that might be actually a problem
Dudeface wrote: Are people jumping to "bad mega corporation" without considering the validity of the claims? Would it matter, do some people expect to be able to operate in a legally incorrect way?
GW doesn't seem to mind people operating in a legally incorrect way when they're bigger than GW...
I think GW has upped the game because there are more than a few that I'm aware of who have had copyright claims from GW who then just kept going. Changing their brand name; setting their Patreon to hidden; jumping around different stores.
Ergo even when GW is 100% in the right, there are a good few who abuse the systems in place as much as they can.
At some point you'd expect GW to up the game and take things to the next level, esp with repeat offenders or larger stores.
And for what it's worth... I do feel bad for some of these folks who were clearly fans that decided to sell a few things on the side. Unfortunately, once you enter the world of commerce, it is PvP and you can get one-shotted.
The context is that a Marvel artist has several times in the past used Tau and Eldar tanks as alien vehicles, and IIRC a fairly obvious boltgun showed up on at least one occasion as well.
Difficult to say if there were any repercussions for this.
Why is that surprising twist? Are you suggesting it's a surprise that the people saying that GW is doing the right thing and would do right by those caught in the crossfire when, they indeed to defend their property and do right by those caught in the crossfire?
Ofc they should have caught them earlier, but at least they're not moustache twirling evil villain stomping off to the courts like a lot of people pretend.
Well, remains to be seen whether GW will "do right by" people who've had their stores closed and assets frozen for a couple of weeks. An act that, in the real world, is a couple degrees more violent than making a half inch picture that maybe looks too much like someone else's half inch picture, to take Baron's example.
The shops voluntarily dismissed are the ones who paid the extortion money. Interesting to see them take the money from the recaster sites and dismissing them without prejudice. I wonder what they intend to follow up on them and why not simply keeping them in the lawsuit.
Why is that surprising twist? Are you suggesting it's a surprise that the people saying that GW is doing the right thing and would do right by those caught in the crossfire when, they indeed to defend their property and do right by those caught in the crossfire?
Ofc they should have caught them earlier, but at least they're not moustache twirling evil villain stomping off to the courts like a lot of people pretend.
What are you talking about? GW totally did stomp off to court before double-checking their list. They are not doing right by anyone, the ones dismissed paid their extortion money.
Hanskrampf wrote: The shops voluntarily dismissed are the ones who paid the extortion money. Interesting to see them take the money from the recaster sites and dismissing them without prejudice. I wonder what they intend to follow up on them and why not simply keeping them in the lawsuit.
Why is that surprising twist? Are you suggesting it's a surprise that the people saying that GW is doing the right thing and would do right by those caught in the crossfire when, they indeed to defend their property and do right by those caught in the crossfire?
Ofc they should have caught them earlier, but at least they're not moustache twirling evil villain stomping off to the courts like a lot of people pretend.
What are you talking about? GW totally did stomp off to court before double-checking their list.
They are not doing right by anyone, the ones dismissed paid their extortion money.
What extortion money? What about the $10,000 I think it was they put aside for anyone for anyone they mistakenly pursued?
Hanskrampf wrote: The shops voluntarily dismissed are the ones who paid the extortion money. Interesting to see them take the money from the recaster sites and dismissing them without prejudice. I wonder what they intend to follow up on them and why not simply keeping them in the lawsuit.
Why is that surprising twist? Are you suggesting it's a surprise that the people saying that GW is doing the right thing and would do right by those caught in the crossfire when, they indeed to defend their property and do right by those caught in the crossfire?
Ofc they should have caught them earlier, but at least they're not moustache twirling evil villain stomping off to the courts like a lot of people pretend.
What are you talking about? GW totally did stomp off to court before double-checking their list.
They are not doing right by anyone, the ones dismissed paid their extortion money.
What extortion money? What about the $10,000 I think it was they put aside for anyone for anyone they mistakenly pursued?
Brickell/GW doesn't want this lawsuit to go to court, see my link earlier. It's pretty much a legal extortion scheme. Brickell/GW make an offer to everyone contacting them to get dropped from the lawsuit for the payment of 2500 USD or make a counter-offer.
Everyone who pays gets dropped from the case, see the recent documents with the list of dismissed defendants (both with and without prejudice).
The 10k collateral GW was legally required to put aside means you have to go to court in the USA first, the judge has to dismiss your case, then your US lawyer can try to get that money. At this point, you have already spent way beyond 10k in legal fees.
well, Wahapedia and Battle Scribe still exist and the community has no problem using either of those
but somehow we should be made at someone who is using the Warhammer 40k logo to advertise their hoodies
What exactly is the correct ratio of people freely committing fraud:random Joe that you consider OK for the general balance in life?
Yes, do tell how many innocents it's okay to hit when gunning for a bad guy (whose crime was to sell a half inch picture that's allegedly too similar to someone else's picture, mind you... I shudder to think how many innocents you'd go through to get to someone who put up a tent in front of a bank)
Hanskrampf wrote: ..., the ones dismissed paid their extortion money.
What are you basing that claim on?
As written before, I'm on the list of defendants.
Does that give you an insight into whether other defendants were dismissed because they paid or because they shouldn't have been on the list in the first place?
Not trying to be snarky here, genuinely just looking for clarification.
Hanskrampf wrote: ..., the ones dismissed paid their extortion money.
What are you basing that claim on?
As written before, I'm on the list of defendants.
Does that give you an insight into whether other defendants were dismissed because they paid or because they shouldn't have been on the list in the first place?
Not trying to be snarky here, genuinely just looking for clarification.
Both. The evidence for all 281 defendants is/was visible for everyone to check, it was shared via a Dropbox link. Plus getting into contact with other defendants is pretty easy when they provide the complete list to everyone.
Hanskrampf wrote: ..., the ones dismissed paid their extortion money.
What are you basing that claim on?
As written before, I'm on the list of defendants.
May I ask what your alleged infraction is please? I'm just curious how fine of a line they're drawing on it.
No, sorry. But everything has been already said in this thread. The "line" ranges from Chinese recasters, to AI pictures on shirts, to 3rd party sculpts and tools ("compatible with Warhammer"), to a Battletech mech (named Warhammer and predates the game Warhammer by a few years) and a piece of terrain (a ruined Citadel). The connection link between all are the use of one of GW's trademarks, no matter the actual product (Warhammer in it's various forms, Citadel, Blood Bowl).
What exactly is the correct ratio of people freely committing fraud:random Joe that you consider OK for the general balance in life?
Yes, do tell how many innocents it's okay to hit when gunning for a bad guy (whose crime was to sell a half inch picture that's allegedly too similar to someone else's picture, mind you... I shudder to think how many innocents you'd go through to get to someone who put up a tent in front of a bank)
OK, so answer the question instead of evasive snark?
I mean would you be happy if it was the reverse? If a series of large firms has used property from a small independent artist to some degree without permission or royalties?
Dudeface wrote: I mean would you be happy if it was the reverse? If a series of large firms has used property from a small independent artist to some degree without permission or royalties?
I... I think we've established pretty well that I'm on the side of the weaker party.
I don't like Marvel stealing from GW either, but GW seemingly letting that go is pretty telling that GW is a classic bully who pees his pants when a bigger bully comes around.
If what Hanskrampf says about everyone's information being on a public dropbox, it might also be a breach of GDPR.
Because GW's litigation attempts seem to come in some sort of... cycle..., I assume they're mostly down to some sad sack of gak laywer padding their annual report with a shotgun blast rather than doing any real work for the rest of the year (for example, examining which infringement is actually an infringement before the lawsuit rather than just doing a hasty google search for the word warhammer and suing everything that comes up).
Dudeface wrote: I mean would you be happy if it was the reverse? If a series of large firms has used property from a small independent artist to some degree without permission or royalties?
I... I think we've established pretty well that I'm on the side of the weaker party.
I don't like Marvel stealing from GW either, but GW seemingly letting that go is pretty telling that GW is a classic bully who pees his pants when a bigger bully comes around.
If what Hanskrampf says about everyone's information being on a public dropbox, it might also be a breach of GDPR.
Because GW's litigation attempts seem to come in some sort of... cycle..., I assume they're mostly down to some sad sack of gak laywer padding their annual report with a shotgun blast rather than doing any real work for the rest of the year (for example, examining which infringement is actually an infringement before the lawsuit rather than just doing a hasty google search for the word warhammer and suing everything that comes up).
Yeah that's a fair take, it's likely an external firm not really knowing or caring about the market doing a case of "look, big number!" to seem like they've done a "good job". The GDPR point is interesting, I'd imagine it gets complicated in these circumstances.
I guess the Marvel instance is a bit different, they've used a Tau model in a comic which at worst, can lead people to GW to buy Tau models and be a benefit or simply not care. There is no actual harm done as it's not competing, it wouldn't be worth pursuing.
An Etsy shop selling printed t-shirts that are awfully close to legitimate products on their licensed merch store is directly competing and hurting their profits however, so would be fair game to try and lock down as it has as much chance of hurting as helping them.
I've been trying to find the follow-up Marvel article, but failing (it was almost 10 years ago). From what I remember GW was already talking to Marvel about doing comics (which came out a few years later) and it was 'dealt-with' internally.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kodos wrote: Wahapedia and Battle Scribe still exist
Wahapedia still exists because it's hosted in Russia, and BattleScribe does not contain the army lists - they're hosted / provided by a 3rd party (same for New Recruit).
kodos wrote: As I wrote, people have no problem with that but at the same time see it justified if GW goes against innocents to find others doing the same
So either you support piracy or you support GW and not just support it if you yourself have a use from it
That's a very broad and bold generalisation to make about 'people' as a whole.
kodos wrote: As I wrote, people have no problem with that but at the same time see it justified if GW goes against innocents to find others doing the same
So either you support piracy or you support GW and not just support it if you yourself have a use from it
Nah, I support both.
● I'll make use of BS, Wagh, 3d printers, re-casters, legit companies making "not-quite GW" or GW compatible, etc as long as they're available, as my needs dictate.
● But if/when GW feels the need to defend their IP/TN/Copyright claims vs these groups?
That's fine. They're required to do so. And these groups know the risk.
BeetleDash said they aren’t even a Warhammer creator. The controller was a custom request from a buyer that disappeared before purchasing the product, they said, so they put the controller online to try to recoup their lost time.
Ghasemy has sold and designed 3D models for players of a variety of games. Most of his designs were created to resemble the models for the Warhammer 40k range, and eventually he would take digital models from the video game Total War: Warhammer III and convert them into 3D printable files which he posted for free on Cults3D.
Both of those seem like reasonable things for GW to object to, although going by the story the sales figure GW have arrived at for the BeetleDash one is questionable.
insaniak wrote: Crikey... that whole page is one giant copyright infringement.
Yeah, kind of throws a different light on their statement from the article. Reading about the 3D sculptor should also be a reminder to people that they should really be forming limited liability companies when setting up any business, to avoid the potential for your own personal finances to be wrecked by things like lawsuits.
This does also highlight one of the weaknesses of the current legal system when it comes to international copyright. It's weird to me that these cases are being brought in Florida. If they're associated with activity on a specific platform I would have thought the appropriate filing location would be the home state of that business (New York for Etsy, California for Patreon). It does seem to be a bit of a weird quirk of the US legal system that shopping around for a favourable court is even a thing in the first place but it seems to be made worse by the almost total discretion the company filing the lawsuit has in where to bring a case.
insaniak wrote: Crikey... that whole page is one giant copyright infringement.
As long as the original product was also a console controller, right?
Copying someone's artwork onto a controller is no different to copying someone's artwork onto dice, or t-shirts, or posters, or whatever. They're using someone else's IP to make custom controllers, and selling them as "[IP Name] Custom Controller". They have absolutely no legal leg to stand on here.
Slipspace wrote: It's weird to me that these cases are being brought in Florida.
The law firm GW have contracted this out to (Brickell IP Group) is based in Florida (Miami & Tampa), so that's a possible reason - sympathetic courts are another.
insaniak wrote: going by the story the sales figure GW have arrived at for the BeetleDash one is questionable.
Someone on Reddit pointed out they'd been selling multiple items - Wayback Machine
Pretty damning proof that they were totally lying in that other article.
Yeah, from the article I was almost willing to be on that dude's side, but then I saw the rest of his shop. That's a hard 'Nope!' from me.
This sort of thing always happens with these situations. Someone making out they did nothing wrong and it's not their fault, which the community then believes at face value and goes "GW BAD!", when actually looking at it it's definitely not how they made it out to be.
Happened with some of the recent animation claims a few months ago too.
For some whilst its copyright material its not a market they are directly invested into specifically so they either don't care or don't realise.
Much like how GW gave a blight look at videos on youtube until they got more invested into that market and came to shut down those profiting from them.
GW are hot on this because its 100% their direct market sector.
