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.

Really Kankuwen? Not as much effort? Have you been to any larger events? Because these Adepticon armies look pretty involved:
http://www.gmmstudios.com/gallery/alpha/40k/CHAOS/index.php

And no lrules lawyering before LoTR! LOL!

Guess you don't remember 3rd edition....

But this is getting OT- Start a new thread if you want to lament "the decline of the hobby".

jmurph wrote:Really Kanluwen? Not as much effort? Have you been to any larger events? Because these Adepticon armies look pretty involved:
http://www.gmmstudios.com/gallery/alpha/40k/CHAOS/index.php

And I'm saying that things like that have become the exception, not the rule. I'm not saying that heavily converted and gorgeously painted armies don't exist anymore--because they do.

I'm saying that they've become rare, and you end up seeing more 'stock' armies than anything else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And no rules lawyering before LoTR! LOL!

"Lawyers ruling". Kroothawk was referring to the popular idea that Games Workshop is ruled by lawyers and corporate executive types now.

People still convert and paint well and put efforts on convos etc... Golden demons quality is superior in technique now (even with blind judges) The quality of the painting IMO increased... the only thing that seems to be changing is the size of the armies, I mean today a full army is kind of substantially bigger than it was 10 years ago so yeah that probably pushes people who want to play to skip the convos more.
But thats offtopic.

Just as an FYI, the Motion to Dismiss was terminated by the judge.

Also, GW has filed an amended complaint.

Eldanar wrote:Just as an FYI, the Motion to Dismiss was terminated by the judge.

Also, GW has filed an amended complaint.

In your face! Frazzled drools all others rules!

Oh wait...

NAVARRO wrote:People still convert and paint well and put efforts on convos etc... Golden demons quality is superior in technique now (even with blind judges) The quality of the painting IMO increased... the only thing that seems to be changing is the size of the armies, I mean today a full army is kind of substantially bigger than it was 10 years ago so yeah that probably pushes people who want to play to skip the convos more.
But thats offtopic.

Marginally off topic, but the comment about the increased size of armies with regards to conversions is a good observation and pertinent imho.
The larger army sizes benefits GW and is hardly discouraged by them.
If people want a specific chapter there is increased pressure on hobby time. It is understandable that people are going to turn to AM products.
Especially if they have jobs and families that get in the way of toy soldier time.

It indicates to me how out of touch GW are. They really ought to be taking positive action and looking for ways of helping the gamer, rather than reacting to IP issues.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:People still convert and paint well and put efforts on convos etc... Golden demons quality is superior in technique now (even with blind judges) The quality of the painting IMO increased... the only thing that seems to be changing is the size of the armies, I mean today a full army is kind of substantially bigger than it was 10 years ago so yeah that probably pushes people who want to play to skip the convos more.
But thats offtopic.

Marginally off topic, but the comment about the increased size of armies with regards to conversions is a good observation and pertinent imho.
The larger army sizes benefits GW and is hardly discouraged by them.
If people want a specific chapter there is increased pressure on hobby time. It is understandable that people are going to turn to AM products.

How does "larger armies creating increased pressure on hobby time" make it "understandable that people are going to turn to AM products"? I'm not really seeing a correlation there. Navarro's point was that people do less converting and tend towards stock models with larger armies(which is a fair point).

Especially if they have jobs and families that get in the way of toy soldier time.
It indicates to me how out of touch GW are. They really ought to be taking positive action and looking for ways of helping the gamer, rather than reacting to IP issues.

In terms of customization: they've got a way to "help the gamer". It's Forge World. Is it expensive? Yeah.

As for the "jobs and families that get in the way of toy soldier time"--they've even come up with a pretty good way to deal with that factor too.
They're called "escalation leagues". Staggered points values, a decent period of time between games ends up meaning you have more time to paint and build up your forces. What's more? It even gives you a sort of framework to start working on a backstory for your force based on those escalation games.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Ian Sturrock wrote:Lost and the Damned should be easy to bring back as counts-as Grey Knights -- you have MCs, GEQs, and MEQs all in that one army. GW giveth and GW taketh away, for sure, but they eventually giveth back again, accidentally (they even finally updated the Chaos Space Marine codex in the form of the Blood Angels codex).

Its not the same though.

This is off topic, but LatD got first class treatment by Forge World IA5-8 with rules and fitting miniatures.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA5_RH.pdf
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Product/PDF/i/IA5_RHFAQ.pdf

On topic, AFAIK, several law firms were interested in defending Chapterhouse pro bono, because it is an interesting case with good chances of success (and a naive bully from old UK as opponent )

Sadly its not that good; as it lacks Mutants and Daemons; the uniqueness of the Heretical Guard and all.

Have you ever looked at the army list? It has all that...

It is a difficult; but interesting area.

Perhaps more contracts need to be done. People agreed with by GW can produce 40k stuff or whatever; so long as its not on GW's range they currently make...so long as a percentage of money per sale goes to GW?

CH would still get most the money; but some would go to GW so its not really as bad.

You realize that giving GW a small percentage, even if it was something extreme like 25%, would still only translate to a few hundred dollars, right? Its not WORTH licensing, because its not that large a sum of money. The only thing it would accomplish is to make the product bitz manufacturers unaffordable.

If it wasn't taking away sales or costing GW money; they wouldn't spend more money on lawyers if it wasn't needed. GW doesn't appear to like to waste money. If CH was really not making much sales; there would be no reason to get legal action.

You're either incredibly young or incredibly naive. The lawsuit is more about trying to eliminate potential future competition, and to be the sole source provider of everything relating to its product line(what Chapterhouse is doing isn't all that dissimilar from how GW got its start. Rather than just producing bits though, GW produced whole models for other companies role playing games). GW goes after all manner of organizations, regardless of whether or not they actually sell anything that can be perceived as 'stealing money' from them. Most of the time, these frivolous lawsuits, scratch that, this bullying, does not go to court, and does not cost GW very much money at all, because they are targeting small mom and pop/basement operations that can't afford the legal fees, and thus they agree to GWs terms and settle out of court (usually this results in the company in question shutting down entirely). This time theiir target actually happened to be able to fight back, much to GWs surprise.

I'm hoping for a games workshop win out of this case, when you take away all the legal mumbo jumbo and the constantly used car part analogy and look at the basic facts, Chapterhouse Studios has been ripping off gws i.p blatantly for a long time, even when people have pointed out that they could avoid legal trouble if they just worded their product discriptions differently. They knew what they were doing could land them in legal hot water and chose to ignore the risks.

All analogies and slimey legal loopholes aside, can anyone honestly say that Chapterhouse aren't ripping off gws i.p? It doesn't seem right how Chs come online and arrogantly say they are all original designs of their own, it's insulting to our intellegence.

I think you're confusing some terms here. CH is not stealing GW's IP, they are (were) in violation of trademark violations as I understand it (not a lawyer).

As does CHS, a while back they chucked a tantrum over someone else making pre heresy jump packs and requested they stop as if those jump packs were a chapterhouse idea which seems pretty hypocritical considering their circumstance... And for the record those jump packs were far superior too.

Please inform yourself of what actually occurred. Those jump packs that CH got pissed about were made by the same sculptor that made the CH jump packs. It was basically an attempt by the sculptor to get double the money for half the work by selling a slightly modified version of his CH sculpt to another company. Part of the agreement a sculptor makes when they sign on to work with CH is that they can't do that (at least that is what the standard agreement for operations like this are, if CH doesn't have such a legal agreement in place with its sculptors then it deserves what it gets), as the original sculpt is no longer the sculptors sole property.

Was that sculptor on a permanent contract? if he fulfills his work with chapterhouse they really shouldn't have any right to tell him what he can or cannot do.. To me the sculpt looked new, very similar yes but better imo.

I refer you to the above, thats not the way it works.

Thats fine but then Chapterhouse should pay GW a royalty fee as well then because thats common place in the industry as well. Some car companies don't allow their parts to be made by third parties as well.

Its only commonplace in the industry if the company in question has a licensing program, which GW does not. Licensing allows you to directly use all iconography, etc. and the names directly associated with the companies IP. In effect, GW giving licensing rights to CH would allow them to produce almost anything, and they would be allowed to sell it as a "Warhammer 40k Blood Angels Space Marine shoulderpad" Rather than a "Space Vampire shoulderpad for use with Warhammer 40k Space Marines". Even with the companies that allow licensing, etc. there are plenty of companies that elect to forego the licensing fees, etc. and produce their works independently, with the stipulation that the can't use the copywritten/trademarked names and symbols of the parent company on their work (like Chapterhouse is doing/should be doing).

Mr Hyena wrote:

And that power armour is not that GW specific at all:

It doesn't really look anything like a stormtrooper though.

Except it does. The only real difference is that the GW armor has exaggerated certain proportions (such as the size of the shoulders and legs). Hell, some of their helmets look like almost direct ripoffs:

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space_Marine-Infantry-Accessories/TYBEROS-THE-RED-WAKE.html

Compare that helmet to the look of a stormtrooper helmet. Some of the curvature is a bit more extreme, and some features are slightly more angular, but its otherwise the same thing.

I cant really hold it against GW the fact that people will probably dodge converting heavy the hordes style of armies that we see on the tables today. It's really a player decision the amount of time he decides to invest on his army... my point was that the quantity of models in todays armies increased, so its probably safe to assume the quality of over the top convertions will have a compromise... the talent is there but the time of each one's is not elastic. One thing is painting converting a army of 100+ models and another is 50ish models.

Except it does. The only real difference is that the GW armor has exaggerated certain proportions (such as the size of the shoulders and legs). Hell, some of their helmets look like almost direct ripoffs:

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space_Marine-Infantry-Accessories/TYBEROS-THE-RED-WAKE.html

Compare that helmet to the look of a stormtrooper helmet. Some of the curvature is a bit more extreme, and some features are slightly more angular, but its otherwise the same thing.

This begs the question, how do you create a "derivative" of something that is already a "derivative". Who actually holds rights to the item? can they sue over something that could be argued is anothers IP?

slippery slope.

NoseGoblin wrote:

Except it does. The only real difference is that the GW armor has exaggerated certain proportions (such as the size of the shoulders and legs). Hell, some of their helmets look like almost direct ripoffs:

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space_Marine-Infantry-Accessories/TYBEROS-THE-RED-WAKE.html

Compare that helmet to the look of a stormtrooper helmet. Some of the curvature is a bit more extreme, and some features are slightly more angular, but its otherwise the same thing.

This begs the question, how do you create a "derivative" of something that is already a "derivative". Who actually holds rights to the item? can they sue over something that could be argued is anothers IP?

slippery slope.

Perhaps I could make a point here. I do not believe that even that Terminator helmet is close enough to a Storm Trooper's helmet to be an infringement on copyright.

I believe the same can be said about Chapterhouse's bits. Sure, they have dragons on shoulderpads, but dragons don't belong exclusively to anyone's IP. All of the Chapterhouse insignias are significantly different from the GW ones- different enough that I'm not sure GW can win this one.

While the "Dragons" are significantly different from the GW ones, the shoulderpads themselves aren't.

Kanluwen wrote:While the "Dragons" are significantly different from the GW ones, the shoulderpads themselves aren't.

But as already estalished, half a million times over, you cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape.

So if the geometric shape itself is public domain, and the dragon design is different, where are the grounds for infringing on intellectual property except in the title?

Ketara wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:While the "Dragons" are significantly different from the GW ones, the shoulderpads themselves aren't.

But as already estalished, half a million times over, you cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape.

So if the geometric shape itself is public domain, and the dragon design is different, where are the grounds for infringing on intellectual property except in the title?

Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

Duh, Ketara... beacause the GW fabbois want it to be.

Thought that much was obvious.

Eric

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

It doesn't.

NoseGoblin wrote:This begs the question, how do you create a "derivative" of something that is already a "derivative". Who actually holds rights to the item? can they sue over something that could be argued is anothers IP?

The scope of your copyright extends to the additional creative elements (the derivative part). You don't re-copyright the original work.

Say I design a human figure and copyright it. You put a hat on him. Now you have a derivative work in the hat (on a human). Now I put a feather in the cap. Now I have a derivative work in the feather (in the hat, on a human).

You still can't infringe the original human (he's my copyright) even if you put a hat on him. I can't make a guy with a hat & feather without permission from you to use the hat.

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

You can copyright or trademark geometric shapes (coca-cola bottle, ipod, fender guitars), but you can't get copyright or trademark protection in the functional elements of a product or design. So GW can't get a trademark in the overall shape of a sholderpad because it's designed to fit around the arm of a model. If the shoulderpad had come attached to the arm, they would have a better position.

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

It doesn't.

Sorry, but it looks quite a bit like "Trade Dress" does.

Pulling from Wikipedia's entry on the "Distinctiveness":

Distinctiveness

To gain registration in the Principal Register or common law protection under the Lanham Act, a trade dress must be “distinctive.” This means that consumers perceive a particular trade dress as identifying a source of a product.[19] For example, when a consumer walks through an electronics store and sees an Apple iPod and immediately recognizes it in favor of other MP3 players, it could be said that the iPod has achieved a "trade dress."

Trade dress can no longer be “inherently distinctive,” it must acquire distinctiveness through “secondary meaning.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 120 S. Ct. 1339, 146 L. Ed. 182, 54 USPQ2d 1065 (2000). Distinctiveness through secondary meaning means that although a trade dress is not distinctive on its face, the use of the trade dress in the market (the “good will” of the trade dress) has created an association between that trade dress and a source in the mind of the consumer.

Although the law is evolving, as it stands now, product packaging (including packaging in very general terms, such as a building’s décor) may be inherently distinctive.[20] However, product design, that is the design or shape of the product itself, may not be inherently distinctive, and must acquire secondary meaning to be protected.

When I see that style of shoulderpad, I think Games Workshop and Space Marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's entirely possible I'm getting the wrong vibe from the way Trade Dress is described, but that's how it's seeming to me.

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

It doesn't.

Kan, you are now arguing with an actual IP lawyer over what is relevant. You're not going to win this one.

Ketara wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

It doesn't.

Kan, you are now arguing with an actual IP lawyer over what is relevant. You're not going to win this one.

And you sure as hell don't know what you're talking about any more than I do, so I'd suggest you take your own advice and pipe down.

Kanluwen wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

It doesn't.

Sorry, but it looks quite a bit like "Trade Dress" does.

Trade Dress would no more cover a single shoulderpad of a space marine than it would a single pinata in a mexican restaurant.

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

It doesn't.

Sorry, but it looks quite a bit like "Trade Dress" does.

Trade Dress would no more cover a single shoulderpad of a space marine than it would a single pinata in a mexican restaurant.

So what exactly does Trade Dress cover or is it just kind of...there?

Kanluwen wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

It doesn't.

Kan, you are now arguing with an actual IP lawyer over what is relevant. You're not going to win this one.

And you sure as hell don't know what you're talking about any more than I do, so I'd suggest you take your own advice and pipe down.

You'll note I'm not the one attempting to argue points of law. In that, you're correct, I know no more than you do (aka, nothing), that's why I'm not even trying.

All I did was state two simple facts, that
a) the design was different, which is clearly evident to anyone with a standard old Mk1 eyeball (no law degree required!), and
b) You cannot make a geometric shape into some sort of copyright. Otherwise I could do it for a circle and a square. This is what's known as common sense. (no law degree required here either!)

So if I continue to refrain from arguing legal points with a lawyer, will you?

Kanluwen wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:While the "Dragons" are significantly different from the GW ones, the shoulderpads themselves aren't.

But as already estalished, half a million times over, you cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape.

So if the geometric shape itself is public domain, and the dragon design is different, where are the grounds for infringing on intellectual property except in the title?

Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

Agreed... They are classifying their work as "works of art" and trade dress is an appropriate grounds for this area. I.e. your work may confuse the common man.

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

It doesn't.

I think your mistaken.

biccat wrote:

NoseGoblin wrote:This begs the question, how do you create a "derivative" of something that is already a "derivative". Who actually holds rights to the item? can they sue over something that could be argued is anothers IP?

The scope of your copyright extends to the additional creative elements (the derivative part). You don't re-copyright the original work.

Say I design a human figure and copyright it. You put a hat on him. Now you have a derivative work in the hat (on a human). Now I put a feather in the cap. Now I have a derivative work in the feather (in the hat, on a human).

You still can't infringe the original human (he's my copyright) even if you put a hat on him. I can't make a guy with a hat & feather without permission from you to use the hat.

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

You can copyright or trademark geometric shapes (coca-cola bottle, ipod, fender guitars), but you can't get copyright or trademark protection in the functional elements of a product or design. So GW can't get a trademark in the overall shape of a sholderpad because it's designed to fit around the arm of a model. If the shoulderpad had come attached to the arm, they would have a better position.

You are correct, but the crux of my question, is who holds the original rights? if GW made a "derivative of a Lucas Arts IP, would not Lucas Arts actually own the IP? And if so, what rights does GW have to sue over something that is not their IP?

Kanluwen wrote:So what exactly does Trade Dress cover or is it just kind of...there?

If you're really curious, and want an in-depth examination, read the link in my previous post.

Alternatively, here is what the Patent & Trademark Office considers when examining trade dress; please don't assume this to be a complete summary of the law around trade dress (there's a reason they are citing cases in there). Basically, a single piece of an overall design isn't going to be subject to trade dress protection, unless it would be protectable in and of itself.

NoseGoblin wrote:Agreed... They are classifying their work as "works of art" and trade dress is an appropriate grounds for this area. I.e. your work may confuse the common man.

Nope, trade dress is not appropriate. "Works of art" are the subject of copyright law.

NoseGoblin wrote:

Janthkin wrote:It doesn't.

I think your mistaken.

That's nice.

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

It doesn't.

Sorry, but it looks quite a bit like "Trade Dress" does.

Trade Dress would no more cover a single shoulderpad of a space marine than it would a single pinata in a mexican restaurant.

The bottom line of Trade Dress is that "what you make may be confused with what we make" It may not be a copy, but it may cause "the average person" to be confused as to who makes the item. Trade Dress is a subjective portion of IP that needs to be argued before a judge or jury to make the distinction as to the veracity of the claim.

to ask a personal question which you can answer or not- is this why you had to quit making your original "titans".

NoseGoblin wrote:The bottom line of Trade Dress is that "what you make may be confused with what we make" It may not be a copy, but it may cause "the average person" to be confused as to who makes the item. Trade Dress is a subjective portion of IP that needs to be argued before a judge or jury to make the distinction as to the veracity of the claim.

The basic principle to trade mark law is, indeed, to prevent customer confusion as to the source of goods and/or services.

Trade dress is a specific subset of trade mark law, having (generally) to do with packaging and overall presentation of a product or service. It's a "totality of the circumstances" issue - while individual pieces of the whole may not be protectable separately, the aggregate whole is distinctive (which is what the Two Pesos case I linked to earlier is about).

A single shoulderpad is not going to fall within the scope of trade dress law.

asmith wrote:to ask a personal question which you can answer or not- is this why you had to quit making your original "titans".

That is correct, they filed under Trade Dress as the models did not infringe on copyright. If they would have had a copyright case, they would have filed it as they can seek damages for copyright. They cannot seek damages for Trade Dress.

The way my Attorney put it "this is what big companies use to shut down little companies, because it has to be argued in court and costs $$$$"

Kanluwen wrote:

Ketara wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:While the "Dragons" are significantly different from the GW ones, the shoulderpads themselves aren't.

But as already estalished, half a million times over, you cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape.

So if the geometric shape itself is public domain, and the dragon design is different, where are the grounds for infringing on intellectual property except in the title?

Yes, we've established that you "cannot trademark or copyright a geometric shape".

But I'd suggest that you look up "Trade Dress" and think about how it relates to this situation.

It doesn't because it isn't in the suit.