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.

Pacific wrote:Interestingly, I've noticed that a couple of 3rd party companies are making vehicles which are based off of other concepts, but are obviously designed with use for 40k in mind. Is this being done with a mind to protecting them from litigation from GW in the future?

For example, the forthcoming 'Gothic tank' from Maxmini, copied from the ugliest real-world tank ever made bar none:

Spoiler:

And from Puppetswar.com, yes it is for Orcs but it is also copied from a 'real world' aircraft (perhaps some aircraft enthusiast will know the name?)

Spoiler:

Funny that both of these models have come out in short order, are they aware of something that we are not, or are they just making their lives easier in the future?

Especially interesting when you realize that in the case of the maximini example, they're harkening back to an actual Historical design (the KV-2 russian tank) that GW also referenced when they did a "ragnarok" pattern russ in WD (or was it a codex...).

As to the ork plane it could be a couple different planes. It kind of reminds me of some of the German WW2 bomebers.

The Ragnarok was in the Epic Stormwind book, as part of the Baran Siegemasters army list.

brettz123 wrote:Could you actually explain specifically what you feel is wrong with the current US IP system? You are throwing out a lot of generic stuff here.

I really don't think this thread is the right place for it. I've PMed you.

Vulcan wrote:Redbeard... I'm afraid I just don't get your point.

It is awful and utterly unforgivable that a third party manufacturer made a miniature that was recognizably a female version of a GW Farseer; terrible to the point that you won't patronize their company.

And yet GW doing the same thing to Geiger's Aliens (and believe me, they did just that; the early Tyranids were clearly recognizable as Aliens) gets a shrug and a pass.

The only early Tyranid that bared any resemblance to a xenomorph was the 3rd edition Hive Tyrant, and only because it was a tall, lithe alien with an exo skeleton and a large head crest. It didn't actually look like the alien queen, just had the same basic profile. Outside of that, I'm hard pressed to think of any Tyranids that looked like anything from Aliens.

His point was just that - GW may take 'inspiration' from other properties, but they make the final product their own.

Chapterhouse are just making things directly from GW's IP. The Warrior Preistess? It's a female aspect warrior. Not specifically a Scorpion, but it's immediately recogniseable to anyone who has seen GW models as an aspect warrior. Same with the Doomseer. If you've seen the Eldar range, you'll know it's a Farseer or Warlock model.

I find it hard to believe you don't think Chapterhouse are directly using GW IP, especially when many of their products use GW names in them. If you buy a Farseer jetbike conversion kit, you're not using it on some Warmachine model.

Thankfully, you cannot legally copyright style.

Copyright applies to *copying*, not imitating. GW does not make a model of that warrior priestess : thus, if CHS makes the model, they cannot possibly be copying.

There is nothing illegal about 'directly using someone's IP', because IP doesn't exist as a legal term. There are Trademarks, Copyrights and Patents.
I honestly don't see the difference between what CHS is doing and what someone making iPhone covers is doing... its obviously for an iPhone, they wouldn't exist without Apple's success, but its a unique piece of art.

They're not parasites. By giving hobbyists another avenue for customisation, they add value to GW rather than taking away. There are so many industries and companies that only exist because of the success of another, and CHS is no different and definitely not evil.

-Loki- wrote:

Vulcan wrote:Redbeard... I'm afraid I just don't get your point.

It is awful and utterly unforgivable that a third party manufacturer made a miniature that was recognizably a female version of a GW Farseer; terrible to the point that you won't patronize their company.

And yet GW doing the same thing to Geiger's Aliens (and believe me, they did just that; the early Tyranids were clearly recognizable as Aliens) gets a shrug and a pass.

The only early Tyranid that bared any resemblance to a xenomorph was the 3rd edition Hive Tyrant, and only because it was a tall, lithe alien with an exo skeleton and a large head crest. It didn't actually look like the alien queen, just had the same basic profile. Outside of that, I'm hard pressed to think of any Tyranids that looked like anything from Aliens.

His point was just that - GW may take 'inspiration' from other properties, but they make the final product their own.

Chapterhouse are just making things directly from GW's IP. The Warrior Preistess? It's a female aspect warrior. Not specifically a Scorpion, but it's immediately recogniseable to anyone who has seen GW models as an aspect warrior. Same with the Doomseer. If you've seen the Eldar range, you'll know it's a Farseer or Warlock model.

I find it hard to believe you don't think Chapterhouse are directly using GW IP, especially when many of their products use GW names in them. If you buy a Farseer jetbike conversion kit, you're not using it on some Warmachine model.

Just walk through this with me, if you would. I understand where you are coming from, and I respect your opinion, but I encourage you to think about the following:

The Eldar have normal human proportions. One can deviate from that in order to do something different. But is it fair to say that using normal human proportions should be something any artist can do? Is it fair to say that if the Eldar and something inspired by the Eldar both have normal human proportions that this fact, in and of itself, would not cause you to think the later was something other than the author's own unique work?

Okay. Continuing, some Eldar are depicted wearing robes. One can deviate from that in order to do something different. But is it fair to say that depicting a normally proportioned human wearing robes should be something that any artist can do? Is it fair to say that if the Eldar and something inspired by the Eldar are both depicted wearing robes that this fact, in and of itself, would not cause you to think the later was something other than the author's own unique work?

Many Eldar are depicted wearing plated body armor. One can deviate from that in order to do something different. But is it fair to say that depicting a normally proportioned human wearing plated body armor should be something that any artist can do? Is it fair to say that if the Eldar and something inspired by the Eldar are both depicted wearing plated body armor that this fact, in and of itself, would not cause you to think the later was something other than the author's own unique work?

Many Eldar are depicted wearing tall, peaked helmets. One can deviate from that in order to do something different. But is it fair to say that depicting a normally proportioned human wearing a tall peaked helmet should be something that any artist can do? Is it fair to say that if the Eldar and something inspired by the Eldar are both depicted wearing a tall peaked helmet that this fact, in and of itself, would not cause you to think the later was something other than the author's own unique work?

Many Eldar are armed with swords, halbards, pistols, rifles, etc. One can deviate from that in order to do something different. But is it fair to say that depicting a normally proportioned human armed with hand weapons and firearms should be something that any artist can do? Is it fair to say that if the Eldar and something inspired by the Eldar are both armed with hand weapons and firearms that this fact, in and of itself, would not cause you to think the later was something other than the author's own unique work?

Now, what if all of these elements were assembled together? One can deviate from that in order to do something different. But is it fair to say that depicting a normally proportioned human wearing robes, plated body armor, and a tall peaked helmet armed with hand weapons and firearms should be something that any artist can do? Is it fair to say that if the Eldar and something inspired by the Eldar are both depicted wearing robes, plated body armor, and a tall peaked helmet armed with hand weapons and firearms that this fact, in and of itself, would not cause you to think the later was something other than the author's own unique work?

Bear in mind that I would like you to keep these concepts as generic as I have described them: normal human proportions, robes, plated body armor, tall peaked helmet, and hand weapons and firearms (or projectile weapons of some kind). I hope that you will be willing to agree that this assemblage of elements dos not, in and of itself, inexorably lead to something that is not one's own work when compared to the Eldar.

Now, given this basis, please explain how works would be "taken directly from GW's IP," and then please explain how works would be a "final product all their own," in your personal opinion, in both cases with a specific reference to the Eldar of the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe.

I am not trying to belittle you or mock you. I genuinely hope that you will make an honest effort to explain your opinion to me, which I hope will prompt further dialogue.

weeble1000 wrote:
Just walk through this with me, if you would....

It's not about wearing robes, it's about wearing robes in the exact same style. With an armless over-robe piece and a long flowing sleeve. It's not about wearing a pointed helmet, it's about wearing a pointed helmet with the exact same face cutout. It's not about wearing plated armour, it's about wearing a breastplate made of sculpted runes. It's not about having a sword, it's about having a sword with the exact same hilt and blade curvatures.

It's not about whether it's reasonable to have a humanoid figure in robes and plate armour with a high helmet and a sword. Because that's a very generic statement and applies to all sorts of models, the vast majority of which don't infringe on anyone else's designs. It's that this specific chapterhouse model has taken several very specific designs and copied them.

Are knockoff purses illegal? Knockoff watches? I really don't know. I know that Coach and Fendi and Rolex issue lawsuits against them, but I have no idea what the exact legal mechanics involved are. What makes it legal to sell decals of Calvin pissing on various things? Did Bill Waterson simply neglect to trademark Calvin, or are these decals being sold because he's just not going after them? What if it was Mickey Mouse peeing on a Ford logo? I'm pretty sure Disney would get involved then. How much different do you have to be from Mickey to avoid the Disney machine? And is Mickey protected because he's a named character? Could GW protect Eldrad in that way? I don't know.

I just think that the Chapterhouse Doomseer is too copied. Robes, Plates, a Sword and a Curved Helmet? Go for it. An Eldar helmet, Rune Armour and a Witchblade - that's a copy.

By the way, check out the Avatars of War site for a view into how a company has made models that are easily used as heros for any of GW's fantasy armies, without using design elements that are blatantly GW. They've got Orcs and Goblins, Light&Dark elves, Daemons, Dwarfs, and so on. But, as an example, look at their daemon models. They've got one "Herald of War" - Pretty easy to use as a "Herald of Khorne" don't you think. But it doesn't say Khorne. It has no GW iconography on it. The sword, while daemonic, looks nothing like the Bloodletter swords GW makes. It has horns, but they're not similar to Bloodletter horns. You can't point to a single design element on that model and say, oh, that part is specifically from a bloodletter. They're clearly influenced from the same sources, but they're not outright copies.

Yes, they are a copy. They're a copy on purpose. Some people won't convert their models, either out of lack of skill or lack of effort. As has been stated previously - Games Workshop no longer sell Bitz. Want your Dark Eldar Scourges to all have bat wings? Tough, it's three feathered and two bat in the box; go buy some more boxes and only use the bat wings.

So, if one were to go to a third party - who make wings in the exact same style, and it's pretty obvious that they're DE Scourge bat wings - is this a bad thing? I say no. Moreover I say it is a good thing.

As for the Eldar; they have a very specific style. Even if they called them "Space Elves", as long as they were in Eldar style, the complaint would remain. But think about it from the perspective of an Eldar player. You want this to fit in to your army. You want it to be in the exact same style. You cannot get this from GW, because they do not make Warlocks on Jetbikes. The name "Eldar" doesn't even belong to GW, anyway - it belongs to Tolkien, as do modern fantasy elves in general. Nor does 'witchblade' - it's just 'witch' and 'blade' as one word (and also a comic series). It's like when Bethesda tried to sue Mojang for making a game called "Scrolls", which is a word that they have no monopoly on.

Speaking of Chapterhouse, their blatant Space Marine bodies are hiliarious, with all that nonsense about "The Empress". You can almost taste the satire.

EDIT: TOTALLY ORIGINAL PRAETORIUS KNIGHTS OF THE EMPRESS. I don't mind this. Actually, I like it. Imagine you put those in a Space Marine army: they'd look great. Now imagine they looked like this. They would not fit your army. They would stick out like a sore thumb, and it would be bad.

Frozen Ocean wrote:....- Games Workshop no longer sell Bitz. Want your Dark Eldar Scourges to all have bat wings? Tough, it's three feathered and two bat in the box; go buy some more boxes and only use the bat wings.....

this reminds me. GW's current policies have allowed retailers to strike out and build their own markets exclusively around the sale of specific bits. I can't recall if the box says its not for resale, but, say someone who breaks up a box and sells off the parts does this to add to their income. It's entirely plausible, given that you'd rather pay $15 for 3 wings than $60 or whatever the heck for an entire box, when you really just want the bat wings. It's equally possible that GW is trying to kill out this part of the market with price hikes, but with people hunting for one specific bit, coughing up for the entire box gets increasingly less attractive when the cost starts to climb.

With respect to statement contained in OP, bit dealers, even if they are exclusively GW bit dealers, are still taking money away from GW, because it's someone else earning the profit off of those parts...... so they would also be parasites. Except for the fact that they offer a vital service of me not having to waste $45 of $60 when I really only need one set of parts and the rest collects dust in a giant steaming pile.

Ah, but you see, these things are never in stock. Yes, I have personal experience with wanting Scourge wings (I paint and occasionally assemble for people I know), as well as a plethora of other such items - wrist-mounted Storm Bolters for my friend's Knights, as he lost one, for example. But those retailers rarely have anything useful in stock! Not their fault, obviously, but it makes them an incredibly unreliable source of bitz.

"Parasitism is a type of non mutual relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."

I don't believe Bitz makers fulfil that description as typically their parts are not available in some form from GW (and therefore do not constitute a lost sale as GW never sold what the customer bought) and require you to have bought a GW kit to use them with.

So both parties benefit, therefore it cannot be called parasitism.

As a biology student, I can't agree with the terminology either. But I do get the spirit of the meaning.

I think the OP means something more along the lines of a scavenger.

Redbeard wrote:By the way, check out the Avatars of War site for a view into how a company has made models that are easily used as heros for any of GW's fantasy armies, without using design elements that are blatantly GW. They've got Orcs and Goblins, Light&Dark elves, Daemons, Dwarfs, and so on. But, as an example, look at their daemon models. They've got one "Herald of War" - Pretty easy to use as a "Herald of Khorne" don't you think. But it doesn't say Khorne. It has no GW iconography on it. The sword, while daemonic, looks nothing like the Bloodletter swords GW makes. It has horns, but they're not similar to Bloodletter horns. You can't point to a single design element on that model and say, oh, that part is specifically from a bloodletter. They're clearly influenced from the same sources, but they're not outright copies.

So their Dwarf Slayers... bare-chested dwarfs with owersized axes, mohawks and plaited beards are not reminiscent of GW designs?
Dark Elves with segmented, spiked armour plates, reptilian scale cloaks, half-naked sorceresses, is not like GW?
The vaguely mongoloid ogre with huge gut plate? The balding warrior monk in chainmail, robes and wielding dual hammers? The Light Elf with scalemail and plate decorated with gems, wings and a high plumed helm?
All are just as much copies of GW property as the Doomseer is.

Trasvi wrote:

Redbeard wrote:By the way, check out the Avatars of War site for a view into how a company has made models that are easily used as heros for any of GW's fantasy armies, without using design elements that are blatantly GW. They've got Orcs and Goblins, Light&Dark elves, Daemons, Dwarfs, and so on. But, as an example, look at their daemon models. They've got one "Herald of War" - Pretty easy to use as a "Herald of Khorne" don't you think. But it doesn't say Khorne. It has no GW iconography on it. The sword, while daemonic, looks nothing like the Bloodletter swords GW makes. It has horns, but they're not similar to Bloodletter horns. You can't point to a single design element on that model and say, oh, that part is specifically from a bloodletter. They're clearly influenced from the same sources, but they're not outright copies.

So their Dwarf Slayers... bare-chested dwarfs with owersized axes, mohawks and plaited beards are not reminiscent of GW designs?
Dark .Elves with segmented, spiked armour plates, reptilian scale cloaks, half-naked sorceresses, is not like GW?
The vaguely .mongoloid ogre with huge gut plate? The balding warrior monk in chainmail, robes and wielding dual hammers? The Light. Elf with scalemail and plate decorated with gems, wings and a high plumed helm?
All are just as much copies of GW property as the Doomseer is.

The thing is those aren't GW property, they have appeared in rpg and wargaming way before GW, so then is GW a parasite? Because their own models are inspired in others.

Trasvi wrote: half-naked sorceresses, is not like GW?

Okay, you got us here! Half-naked™ sorceresses™ were truely invented by GW

They're making the hobby more expensive. So purge them with fire!
GW wouldn't have to invest so much money in a crack legal team if people didn't constantly infringe their IP.
Two price increases on models that I always buy becauce (IMO) of third party companies and law suits.

Two price hike or some bits a small portion of hobbyist uses, I think I will stick with the lower price and not have these bits.

InquisitorVaron wrote:They're making the hobby more expensive. So purge them with fire!
GW wouldn't have to invest so much money in a crack legal team if people didn't constantly infringe their IP.
Two price increases on models that I always buy becauce (IMO) of third party companies and law suits.

Two price hike or some bits a small portion of hobbyist uses, I think I will stick with the lower price and not have these bits.

*Irony* Yeah, the poor guys at GW have to up the cost to pay for legal expenses, poor sods, I'm suuure they wouldn't have done it otherwise

Are you serious? GW price increases have very little to do with protecting their IP and all to do with profit. They have always been expensive and price increases have been a regular feature of their brand for many years. It's the way they are, and nothing to do with some little companies making a few heads to put on their figures.

How many expensive lawsuits have GW had to fight? Not many that I recall. They usually send out spurious C&Ds and wait for the little people to fold, Chapterhouse fighting back to this degree is a first. Oops, whose fault is it that GW can't mount a strong legal case?

In terms of individual parts made by 3rd parties as upgrades: To be honest, GW has brought this on themselves.
Things like the tervi/tyranno kit took far too long to release, so people had to find an alternative.

Now, if a 3rd party presents such an option, thats GW's loss.
They have the ability to release a full range from the dex when finished, but instead chose to use a wave method that left people waiting ages for what was in some cases, essential items.

While im not saying its directly GW's fault, this could have been avoided by either bringing out kits for the books sooner, or atleast giving us some indication that they are on the way.



Entire models made by a 3rd party: This one is tricky as it depends on the model.

Some things (mainly power armour) really do look like they fit straight into GW's line of models, which i dont really agree with, however, it is again a hole in the market that someone can capitalise on.

On a side note, things like the storm raven extention isnt such a bad idea, as ive known alot of people to buy both kits as they refuse to use the normal "chibihawk"
This in turn has earned GW revenue by supplimenting a kit that has been seen as "poor" by a player.


Other things like elves, orks etc are harder to judge though.
These have been around for far too long and have soo many different variations its hard not to copy another persons design when making them.
Granted that things like emblems and iconography dont help the case, but again, GW are a large company that want to make money, they are missing out on tons of revenue by not releasing certain things with books.

InquisitorVaron wrote:GW wouldn't have to invest so much money in a crack legal team if people didn't constantly infringe their IP.

You are aware that the "crack legal team"
1.) accused one person of things he obviously had absolutely no connection to (Paulson)
2.) even after 1.5 years is still unable to make a formally correct complaint about what Chapterhouse might have done wrong?
3.) GW makes a ca. 10% price hike every year, lawsuit or not.

jgehunter wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

Redbeard wrote:By the way, check out the Avatars of War site for a view into how a company has made models that are easily used as heros for any of GW's fantasy armies, without using design elements that are blatantly GW. They've got Orcs and Goblins, Light&Dark elves, Daemons, Dwarfs, and so on. But, as an example, look at their daemon models. They've got one "Herald of War" - Pretty easy to use as a "Herald of Khorne" don't you think. But it doesn't say Khorne. It has no GW iconography on it. The sword, while daemonic, looks nothing like the Bloodletter swords GW makes. It has horns, but they're not similar to Bloodletter horns. You can't point to a single design element on that model and say, oh, that part is specifically from a bloodletter. They're clearly influenced from the same sources, but they're not outright copies.

So their Dwarf Slayers... bare-chested dwarfs with owersized axes, mohawks and plaited beards are not reminiscent of GW designs?
Dark .Elves with segmented, spiked armour plates, reptilian scale cloaks, half-naked sorceresses, is not like GW?
The vaguely .mongoloid ogre with huge gut plate? The balding warrior monk in chainmail, robes and wielding dual hammers? The Light. Elf with scalemail and plate decorated with gems, wings and a high plumed helm?
All are just as much copies of GW property as the Doomseer is.

The thing is those aren't GW property, they have appeared in rpg and wargaming way before GW, so then is GW a parasite? Because their own models are inspired in others.

GW would not have existed were it not for Tolkien and DnD. If I recall correctly, GW was originally a DnD distributor. Fantasy was clearly strongly influenced by DnD and Lord of the Rings. GW white knights should be the last ones to complain about parasitic companies.

Other miniature companies are producing products that are satisfying consumer demand, for if they were not, then they would go out of business. Far from going under, these miniature companies are growing in size and stature.

spaceelf wrote:

jgehunter wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

Redbeard wrote:By the way, check out the Avatars of War site for a view into how a company has made models that are easily used as heros for any of GW's fantasy armies, without using design elements that are blatantly GW. They've got Orcs and Goblins, Light&Dark elves, Daemons, Dwarfs, and so on. But, as an example, look at their daemon models. They've got one "Herald of War" - Pretty easy to use as a "Herald of Khorne" don't you think. But it doesn't say Khorne. It has no GW iconography on it. The sword, while daemonic, looks nothing like the Bloodletter swords GW makes. It has horns, but they're not similar to Bloodletter horns. You can't point to a single design element on that model and say, oh, that part is specifically from a bloodletter. They're clearly influenced from the same sources, but they're not outright copies.

So their Dwarf Slayers... bare-chested dwarfs with owersized axes, mohawks and plaited beards are not reminiscent of GW designs?
Dark .Elves with segmented, spiked armour plates, reptilian scale cloaks, half-naked sorceresses, is not like GW?
The vaguely .mongoloid ogre with huge gut plate? The balding warrior monk in chainmail, robes and wielding dual hammers? The Light. Elf with scalemail and plate decorated with gems, wings and a high plumed helm?
All are just as much copies of GW property as the Doomseer is.

The thing is those aren't GW property, they have appeared in rpg and wargaming way before GW, so then is GW a parasite? Because their own models are inspired in others.

GW would not have existed were it not for Tolkien and DnD. If I recall correctly, GW was originally a DnD distributor. Fantasy was clearly strongly influenced by DnD and Lord of the Rings. GW white knights should be the last ones to complain about parasitic companies.

Other miniature companies are producing products that are satisfying consumer demand, for if they were not, then they would go out of business. Far from going under, these miniature companies are growing in size and stature.

I think my point wasn't communicated well/got lost a bit.
I don't believe that GW owns any of those particular styles. Nor do I believe they own the style of the Doomseer. Redbeard said that he thought Avatars of War was a good example of how to do it right; I was trying to point out that they are doing exactly the same thing as Chapterhouse are doing with their Doomseer. I believe both should be allowed (though I much prefer AoW sculpting). I believe there is a point when putting together enough generic concepts creates something unique and protectable; but some of GW's work, particularly their fantasy, is so generic that it doesn't contain any inherently coprightable elements. But, IANAL... so we wait for the chapterhouse case to figure this stuff out .

I will reply to Redbeard in due time. I'm building a Blood Bowl pitch today have little time to spare.

The poll is rather interesting. Over the past few days the numbers of voters have gone up, but the relative percentages have remained remarkably consistent. A sample size of over 200 respondents is actually pretty good from a research point of view, not that I am suggesting the results are necessarily representative. The poll is, of course, self selective as one has to be on DakkaDakka, have read the thread, etc. etc. The results are interesting nonetheless.

Redbeard wrote:


Giger's Aliens are bipedal. They're pretty well defined with two legs and two arms and a tail. I'm not an expert on the Alien's extended universe, but this was the case in all the movies I saw and at least the first few pages of GIS. Tyranids have six limbs. Giger's Aliens seem to have no ranged capabilities. Tyranids routinely make use of weapon symbiote creatures. I'm fairly sure that presented with a model of each, even a casual observer would be able to tell them apart. Yes, clearly GW was influenced by Giger's work, and also other work. However, they took those influences, put their own spin on it, and made it something sufficiently distinct that someone unfamiliar with either source could be told about these fundamental differences and correctly sort each.
my opinion that there are plenty of manufacturers out there who have created their own designs and that are doing it the right way, even if their work is compatible with GW models, and I support those companies.

If one applies a similar argument to the Tyranid works with reference to HR Geiger's works, one would arrive at the same conclusion. All you have pointed out is that the Tyranids have 6 limbs, ranged weapons, etc. First, pointing out differences is not actually legally appropriate when determining if one work is a copy of another

They also copied more then a bit- if you recall the second edition hormagaunts, the heads for them were dead on copies from alien heads. They were oblong dead ringers.....

carmachu wrote:

Redbeard wrote:


Giger's Aliens are bipedal. They're pretty well defined with two legs and two arms and a tail. I'm not an expert on the Alien's extended universe, but this was the case in all the movies I saw and at least the first few pages of GIS. Tyranids have six limbs. Giger's Aliens seem to have no ranged capabilities. Tyranids routinely make use of weapon symbiote creatures. I'm fairly sure that presented with a model of each, even a casual observer would be able to tell them apart. Yes, clearly GW was influenced by Giger's work, and also other work. However, they took those influences, put their own spin on it, and made it something sufficiently distinct that someone unfamiliar with either source could be told about these fundamental differences and correctly sort each.
my opinion that there are plenty of manufacturers out there who have created their own designs and that are doing it the right way, even if their work is compatible with GW models, and I support those companies.

If one applies a similar argument to the Tyranid works with reference to HR Geiger's works, one would arrive at the same conclusion. All you have pointed out is that the Tyranids have 6 limbs, ranged weapons, etc. First, pointing out differences is not actually legally appropriate when determining if one work is a copy of another

They also copied more then a bit- if you recall the second edition hormagaunts, the heads for them were dead on copies from alien heads. They were oblong dead ringers.....

The Alien Queen has 6 limbs, so that difference in limbs argument is gone. Also Aliens can spit acid, so they do have a range-typed attack.

The feel of the original genestealers was very Alien when Space Hulk was first released, but Tyranids in general went 'big bugs' after the Starship Troopers film was released.

Bang on: Genestealers. There is no question that Genestealers are heavily based upon the Xenomorph. Stealthy, ridiculously amazing in close combat (with dem claws), about the same size, and 'steal genes' in a different, but similar, way. The entire setting of Space Hulk is just so unquestionably Aliens, too.

But it's the same for everything. Most things are based on, or inspired by, the work of another artist/writer/etc. That's fine. Nobody is complaining about the similarity between Xenomorph and Genestealers. I love both of those things!

Also, the old Hive Tyrant (with the crest) was just a beefy Queen with eyes, nevermind the psychic dominion over all lesser creatures. Warriors = Praetorians. But that's okay. Many parallels could be drawn between the Tyranids and the Zerg. That's okay, too.

Howard A Treesong wrote:The feel of the original genestealers was very Alien when Space Hulk was first released, but Tyranids in general went 'big bugs' after the Starship Troopers film was released.

I remember looking at the 1st edition Space Hulk box and the chap in the shop describing at as 'Aliens the boardgame'. There was absolutely no pretence at it being anything else, although that is not necessarily a bad thing, and in fact the release of the game itself was timed so that the movie was still fresh in people's minds.

But, in the same way that I don't think anyone (except those who have limited knowledge of other fictions) would describe Nids as being completely original, what is really these days? It's a struggle to find anything (especially in the Science Fantasy area) which hasn't been done before.

They're a parasite, but they're a good parasite, like a woman with a baby.

They're undeveloped, but eventually they'll grow into their oedipus complex and kill the father (GW) and marry the mother (wargaming as a whole, I guess.)

here is a thought to process..........if you think that the third party companies are parasites...........technically so isnt anyone who trades or sells used stuff............in both cases it eats away at the profits of the company who makes the product