Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:I presume that CH could legitimately claim they did not copy the idea of making a shoulder pad with an arrow on it, because GW haven't made a shoulder pad with an arrow on it for CH to copy. (Substitute a different symbol for Arrow if necessary to make the example work.)

Actually, you would need to substitute a different shape. GW has, indeed, made such pad. I have 30 or so on my Space Marines. They're metal.

I also have the Heavy Support "explosion" pads in metal and the Fast Attack "crossed arrows" on shoulder pads.

Eric

Kilkrazy wrote:I presume that CH could legitimately claim they did not copy the idea of making a shoulder pad with an arrow on it, because GW haven't made a shoulder pad with an arrow on it for CH to copy. (Substitute a different symbol for Arrow if necessary to make the example work.)

Cough *assault on black reach* cough cough hack cough hack haaaack haaaaaaaaaaaack cough cough m-mmhmmhmmhhmhhmmmhmm sorry, hairball

then again, its not like an arrow on a shoulder pad is that original either... actually, I think the next batch of clown-marines I do might all have "fragile, this side up" written on beside the arrow.

i wonder if you can claim something like...."limited design possibilities" meaning that, the shape of the human form dictates what you can wear, which in turn dictates the options available. Ergo, I don't have to prove that I didn't copy it, just that all other versions don't make sense.

This really is a great thread. I'm so happy that it didn't get completely trolled. Thanks guys!

poda_t wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I presume that CH could legitimately claim they did not copy the idea of making a shoulder pad with an arrow on it, because GW haven't made a shoulder pad with an arrow on it for CH to copy. (Substitute a different symbol for Arrow if necessary to make the example work.)

Cough *assault on black reach* cough cough hack cough hack haaaack haaaaaaaaaaaack cough cough m-mmhmmhmmhhmhhmmmhmm sorry, hairball

then again, its not like an arrow on a shoulder pad is that original either... actually, I think the next batch of clown-marines I do might all have "fragile, this side up" written on beside the arrow.

i wonder if you can claim something like...."limited design possibilities" meaning that, the shape of the human form dictates what you can wear, which in turn dictates the options available. Ergo, I don't have to prove that I didn't copy it, just that all other versions don't make sense.

My point is that, if GW do not make a shoulder pad with symbol XYZ on it, then CH can claim their shoulder pad with symbol XYZ on it, is not copied from the design that GW haven't actually made.

(I have no idea what shoulder pad symbols CH and GW have been making.)

From what I remember CHS made a point NOT to make pads that involved logos or designs that were 1:1 with GW. They made pads of their own designs and marketed them towards certain chapters, but they very much made sure that the symbols did not even exist as artwork from GW.

Mr Hyena wrote:

I just don't want GW to win because I hate them as a company...simple really, I don't give a damn about IP violations, I just wanna see GW fail...again.

But other companies aren't any better.

Oh, I don't know about that. Mantic seem to be on the right track. They actually listen to thier customers and act upon popular consumer opinion.

Kilkrazy wrote:

poda_t wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I presume that CH could legitimately claim they did not copy the idea of making a shoulder pad with an arrow on it, because GW haven't made a shoulder pad with an arrow on it for CH to copy. (Substitute a different symbol for Arrow if necessary to make the example work.)

Cough *assault on black reach* cough cough hack cough hack haaaack haaaaaaaaaaaack cough cough m-mmhmmhmmhhmhhmmmhmm sorry, hairball

then again, its not like an arrow on a shoulder pad is that original either... actually, I think the next batch of clown-marines I do might all have "fragile, this side up" written on beside the arrow.

i wonder if you can claim something like...."limited design possibilities" meaning that, the shape of the human form dictates what you can wear, which in turn dictates the options available. Ergo, I don't have to prove that I didn't copy it, just that all other versions don't make sense.

My point is that, if GW do not make a shoulder pad with symbol XYZ on it, then CH can claim their shoulder pad with symbol XYZ on it, is not copied from the design that GW haven't actually made.

(I have no idea what shoulder pad symbols CH and GW have been making.)

ah, okay

but yeah that makes sense. The grey area is if it looks similar, what can you do about it? My problem is if I look at some of GW's stuff, the alpha legion dragon-head pauldrons make for sex-machine salamander pauldrons when compared to the actual salamander design. I guess what I am trying to say is that thematically, it doesn't even seem right that by slapping design X over component Y makes it unique, and protectable, and prevents anyone else from making their own version of same. Then again, even IF it is something copied from GW, like the freaking skull-loaded skullography, its hard to prove aything, because that is just too damn easy to come up with, and too common a theme to be protected... I am just wondering what range of stuff GW CAN actually protect. The only iconically unique IP thing that comes to mind as unquestionably belonging to GW is the space marine helmet, but I have my doubts about that too and wonder if it too isn't taken from somewhere else.... well, then theres the eldar, which i actually don't follow so I dont know where those buggards came from.

The current GW SM helmets look similar to the SM helmet designed and made by a friend of mine in the late 1980s, converted from the then current "beaky" helmets.

The breath mask is even older, coming from Darth Vader (mid-1970s).

This is where I think GW are on thin ice. So much of their claimed copyright imagery is obviously derivative of prior artworks.

Not to mention the Cylon heads from the old BSG...

I'm not sure how good a defense of "They do it too!" is going to be, especially if GW does have the IP/copyright/etc. on the items in question which, admittedly, apparently haven't been properly identified yet!

Alpharius wrote:I'm not sure how good a defense of "They do it too!" is going to be, especially if GW does have the IP/copyright/etc. on the items in question which, admittedly, apparently haven't been properly identified yet!

That defense is either "unclean hands" or an attack on the validity of GW's copyright, and both are good defenses to GW's claim.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The breath mask is even older, coming from Darth Vader (mid-1970s).
.

THANK YOU!!!!

i was wondering why it looked so bloody familiar the first time i saw it!

thank you!

biccat wrote:

Alpharius wrote:I'm not sure how good a defense of "They do it too!" is going to be, especially if GW does have the IP/copyright/etc. on the items in question which, admittedly, apparently haven't been properly identified yet!

That defense is either "unclean hands" or an attack on the validity of GW's copyright, and both are good defenses to GW's claim.

Doesn't that depend entirely upon what GW claims has been violated?

Once again we are running into the problem that GW haven't made any claims as to what has been violated.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other words, we are speculating about possible claims and defences to them.

Lint wrote:This really is a great thread. I'm so happy that it didn't get completely trolled. Thanks guys!

I'd just like to echo this sentiment.

Out of interest, biccat, can you give any information as to where "unclean hands" originates from? I find it amusing that a defence of "Games Workshop has unclean hands" can be made in a court of law

Do court battles always take this damn long? Jesus, this has been going on for months and GW still haven't even said what exactly CH was infringing on? How much longer before they have an answer? How long will the judge wait for them for that matter?

Sidstyler wrote:Do court battles always take this damn long?

Yes.

Oh.

8I

The fun thing is that this isn't even a "court battle". This is just a series of preliminary hearings establishing whether GW actually has a case worthy of seeing the insides of a court-room.

Dysartes wrote:

Lint wrote:This really is a great thread. I'm so happy that it didn't get completely trolled. Thanks guys!

I'd just like to echo this sentiment.

Out of interest, biccat, can you give any information as to where "unclean hands" originates from? I find it amusing that a defence of "Games Workshop has unclean hands" can be made in a court of law

If I understand "unclean hands" right, it is a legal term. It means that you cannot claim a copyright due to the fact that the material you are trying to claim is a derivative of something you don't own.
If I am wrong, Bicat, please correct me.

clean hands doctrine

n. a rule of law that a person coming to court with a lawsuit or petition for a court order must be free from unfair conduct (have "clean hands" or not have done anything wrong) in regard to the subject matter of his/her claim. His/her activities not involved in the legal action can be abominable because they are considered irrelevant. As an affirmative defense (positive response) a defendant might claim the plaintiff (party suing him/her) has a "lack of clean hands" or "violates the clean hands doctrine" because the plaintiff has misled the defendant or has done something wrong regarding the matter under consideration. Example: A former partner sues on a claim that he was owed money on a consulting contract with the partnership when he left, but the defense states that the plaintiff (party suing) has tried to get customers from the partnership by spreading untrue stories about the remaining partner's business practices.

Steelmage99 wrote:The fun thing is that this isn't even a "court battle". This is just a series of preliminary hearings establishing whether GW actually has a case worthy of seeing the insides of a court-room.

I think the best part of this is that Chapterhouse Studios is still releasing things - Doomsear, Gun Halberds, Death Angels Land Raider doors, a Chimera conversion, and a 'true-scale' conversion kit to make the Storm Raven look much better.

Dysartes wrote:Out of interest, biccat, can you give any information as to where "unclean hands" originates from? I find it amusing that a defence of "Games Workshop has unclean hands" can be made in a court of law

You have to first understand the difference between two types of remedies available to a plaintiff. The first is a remedy at law, the second is a remedy in equity.

Remedies at Law originated from the Kings Court where only certain types of writs were available. If your case wasn't specifically covered by a writ from the king, then you would be unable to recover, even if you had been wronged. These writs awarded money damages.

Remedies in Equity came from the Court of Chancery, which was essentially a religious tribunal heavily based on Roman law. Chancellors would listen to each side's case and make a determination based on equitable principles, or basically what would be fair in that case. These were in the form of injunctive relief.

Eventually, a number of maxims developed in the Court of Chancery, and one of them is that "he who seeks equity must do equity." That is, if you're asking the court to rule that the other guy used unfair dealings against you, you couldn't have used unfair dealings to attain your current position.

For example, if you stole $100 from person X, then person Y stole the same $100 from you, a court sitting in equity would not award you the $100 from person Y. Contrast this to the court sitting in law. In a court sitting in law, you have superior rights to person Y over that $100, and the court could (hypothetically) return that money to you.

Eventually, the courts merged, and now the distinction between law and equity is really due to remedies, and so equitable remedies are relevant to a case in law.

In short, the basis is that "he who seeks equity must do equity." One part of this was expressed as "one who comes into equity must come with clean hands."

Alpharius wrote:I'm not sure how good a defense of "They do it too!" is going to be, especially if GW does have the IP/copyright/etc. on the items in question which, admittedly, apparently haven't been properly identified yet!

The point is as GW is not the original creator of said concepts, they can't provide proof of having the copyright/trademark (as they shamelessly claim to have, on their website legal pages). The US lawyers representing GW seem to know that they have no case, therefore the awkward moves to hide the fact.

infinite_array wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:The fun thing is that this isn't even a "court battle". This is just a series of preliminary hearings establishing whether GW actually has a case worthy of seeing the insides of a court-room.

I think the best part of this is that Chapterhouse Studios is still releasing things - Doomsear, Gun Halberds, Death Angels Land Raider doors, a Chimera conversion, and a 'true-scale' conversion kit to make the Storm Raven look much better.

just checked their stuff out... its getting better in quality too! i think i might just throw an order in.

Anything happening?, I'm going to be out of the loop for a next few days (at least 5, probably 10).

Cheers

Andrew

Its a very, very, very slow process, I think it will be two to three weeks before we see any development, at the very best. otherwise, update next month.... im jsut guessing because I know how hard and slow lawsuits go. People need to forget television completely. We have some personal injury stuff thats been going on for near 8 years or more

poda_t wrote:Its a very, very, very slow process, I think it will be two to three weeks before we see any development, at the very best. otherwise, update next month.... im jsut guessing because I know how hard and slow lawsuits go. People need to forget television completely. We have some personal injury stuff thats been going on for near 8 years or more

AndrewC wrote:Anything happening?, I'm going to be out of the loop for a next few days (at least 5, probably 10).

Cheers

Andrew

Maybe if we let them know that Andrew will be out of touch for the next 5 to 10 days?

I'm actually surprised it is moving as quickly as it is!

aerethan wrote:From what I remember CHS made a point NOT to make pads that involved logos or designs that were 1:1 with GW. They made pads of their own designs and marketed them towards certain chapters, but they very much made sure that the symbols did not even exist as artwork from GW.

I actually think that this is a strong point for CHS. GW could have a specific dragon head emblem copyrighted, but they can't copyright the idea of a dragon head emblem. So, when CHS make their "Salamander" shoulderpads, they look totally different from the ones that GW has made. I don't think that GW can have a case if they're trying to protect the more generic of their insignias.

On another note, I learned in a PR class that if you want to protect a trademark on a logo, you have to be very careful to always present it in exactly the same way. That makes me think that the Citadel and GW logos are pretty well protected, but each insignia of each space marine chapter they've ever come up with can't be protected in every imaginable form they could possibly take.

But then again, we're still waiting to see if copying their insignias is actually part of GW's claim or not.

lord marcus wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

I just don't want GW to win because I hate them as a company...simple really, I don't give a damn about IP violations, I just wanna see GW fail...again.

But other companies aren't any better.

Oh, I don't know about that. Mantic seem to be on the right track. They actually listen to thier customers and act upon popular consumer opinion.

Ok, this is probably a discussion for another topic, but I'd like to address it here.

GW has really bad PR. You can tell this in part by the way they seem so out of touch as compared to other companies. The opinion of GW from even their most loyal of fans is pretty poor. They've presented themselves as an extremely out of touch corporation that cares about the bottom line at the expense of their fanbase.

That opinion of GW has been around since I started gaming, but it has gotten worse over time.

Most other gaming companies don't do that. Sure, Wizards of the Coast is not any better, but if you start looking into other gaming companies you'll find that Wyrd Miniatures, Privateer Press, Mantic Games, Corvus Belli, Reaper, Dark Age, Crocodile Games and others aren't seen that way. And for good reason.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:While "Dragonscale" cloaks have been around in fiction, I don't think that they've really been something you see on Spacemen.
I'm not as up on IP law as Polonius or a few other members here would be; but I'm fairly certain that the context would matter.

I'm not going to get into specifics, because I am sure there are a lot of arguments and counter-arguments about what kind of "generic" style designs are permitted (I know next to nothing about IP law either ). Indeed, I feel that this lawsuit is more about GW trying to stamp out anyone from making anything even remotely like their own product(s). Which to me is insane because GW did not create most of the looks, designs, etc they claim as their own. Many existed previously in fiction, history, etc. Many were also created "in model" by other companies before hand as well.

Well, if nothing else, GW is adamant about trying to hold on to the fantasy that they are the only company of their sort.