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.

PhantomViper wrote:
Someone please quote this so that Kingsley can see it please.

 Kingsley wrote:

We'll let the courts decide that. I think it's laughable that anyone would even try to claim that these aren't Gaunt's Ghosts models, and in fact think the people doing so are attempting to move the goalposts after they were caught out not knowing GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models in the first place.

Psst... Psst, my question for you to post the GW Gaunt's Ghosts was a rhetorical one so that I could show you that they aren't the same models. I'm perfectly aware that GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models, especially because I OWN a full 2 squad + command squad platoon of said models.

 spaceelf wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Everyone (except for Grot 6), has stated that the miniature is indeed a pretty blatant copy of the Loaxtl drawing, what people are disputing is that a 3D representation of a 2D image really constitutes infringement or not (and so the ridicule of the "obvious" statement by Kingsley).

Sean_OBrien stated earlier in the thread "transformation from 2D to 3D is not normally significant enough of a transformation to be outside copyright laws on its own." I take this to mean that if there is an existing 2d drawing that is copyright, and I make a 3d sculpture based on it, then I can be sued for copyright infringement and will likely be found guilty. In the eyes of the law the transformation from 2d to 3d is not creative enough to constitute something completely different, and hence it is not out of reach of the copyright laws.

In terms of the other comments in the thread about GW copying all sorts of stuff, well of course it is true. Almost all of GWs stuff is highly derivative. They are just lucky that the people that they copied from are not a bunch of d-bags.

On its own...

Courts evaluate copyright infringement based on two big factors (lots more than two...but it generally boils down to two). First is the uniqueness of a particular work. Something like the lizard thing is much more unique then the later mentioned (though not being actively contested, yet) scout girl. Very little on the scout girl is unique, whereas a few things on the lizard are unique (the chest mounted cannon in particular...beyond that it is a lot of fairly standard stuff).

The second is the overall feeling, composition and manner that those non-unique things are put together - and how that is or is not substantial to the work. For example, on the lizard thing...spikes on lizards are not that unique. The two spikes on the base of the tail of the lizard thing become more distinctive. The dew claws of the lizard thing were mentioned in the text IIRC as being important to the lizard thing in context, but are absent from the BW miniature. A cannon on the back or even sides of the head would be less unique, as those mounting points are more common. Although there is a lot of research that would go into it...this portion largely boils down to a gut feeling.

We'll let the courts decide that. I think it's laughable that anyone would even try to claim that these aren't Gaunt's Ghosts models, and in fact think the people doing so are attempting to move the goalposts after they were caught out not knowing GW made Gaunt's Ghosts models in the first place

Not in the least, as I said, it could clearly be meant as a Gaunt's Ghosts replacement and not make any difference at all. The lack of anything distinctive makes it a difficult concept to protect. The only thing which most people would be able to point to is the lasgun... But GWs lasgun is hardly unique. The slanted muzzle shows up well before GW adopted it (see Metal Magic or Laser Eraser before that).

Everything else, from the cloak to the knife are standard and are not even that unique in their composition (any number of illustrations during the 30+ year history of Heavy Metal magazine fit the bill).

You edited that fact into your post after I had already started reply and I didn't see it, so claiming that I'm "ignoring" it isn't fair play. But it's a silly point anyway, because it's not like you have to be actively producing something for it to be yours. Would it be legitimate for someone to start making an old-school "HUGS" Carnifex because GW doesn't do so anymore? Of course not. 

Actually, in jolly old England...it would be. The exclusive design right that GW would hold on those has long since expired, and pretty much anyone there could in fact make exact copies. Design rights were in fact written specifically to deal with consumer products that have gone OOP to a large extent.

GW have been playing IP bully for so long I find it hard to care whether they're in the right or not in this case. Maybe it is an infringement, I dunno, but seeing as how there's a mountain of bs ownership claims behind them I'm not too keen to take them seriously anymore.

And I don't really see the similarity between GW's GG model and BWM's "homage". Honest to god I can't even tell which one of the GW models this girl is supposed to be, the only thing that looks similar to me is her fething gun. I see no bare midriffs, I don't see anyone with that hairstyle, and I don't think you can sue because of a cloak. Are you sure any of these models are actually female?

The only thing tying the female model to 'Gaunts Ghost' is the makers own words explicitly saying it was explicitly to represent a character from GW's 'Gaunts Ghosts' characters.

Public statements like that go a long way to establish intent and make it much harder to claim, "Nah, she is just a jungle female solider we made... She is pretty muscular and not gaunt at all, and she is alive, so she isn't undead."

And this idea that someone has to be making a directly competing model for IP to be infringed upon simply isn't true. If I made a Mickey Mouse model and said "mickey Mouse doesn't make wargaming minis, Disney has no directly competing model, I am not infringing" I would be laughing all the way to the poor house as I would be sued to death.

Would it be all right if the Blight Wheel figures had been called Adam's Nightstalkers or something?

I mean damn it, are people not even allowed to say things that are reminiscent of a name GW has used?

You know, GW could just make Loxatl minis, straight from their own artwork, cheaper and perhaps even a better sculpt than the blightwheel one and let the market decide if they really do make 'the best model soldiers in the world'.

Instead of saturation bombing the rest of the miniature making world with endless C&D for artwork of things they had no intention of releasing, get on with getting your house in order. If there is a market for these miniatures, why the feth aren't you selling them you colossal, ponderous, arrogant old bastard?

Quit trampling cottage industries and GET ON WITH MAKING PRODUCT. You have a huge manufacturing capability compared to these dudes, make something better, cheaper.

'Deliver up all moulds to us, you have 20 seconds to comply'...

Blow them out of the water IN THE MARKET. Stop being a legal company and start being a wargames company ffs. If a company is making shoulder pads for space marine chapters you aren't making shoulder pads for, MAKE THE SHOULDER PADS and make them better and cheaper.

...fething company drives me nuts. Stop lounging about in boardrooms 'defending' your IP and go and USE IT!!!! Relish the competition and strive to beat it instead of pissing your pants and hiding behind legal teams, you pack of entrenched, stale, antiquated and frightened gaks. What are you going to do when a real threat occurs? When someone gets enough backing to launch a large range of excellently sculpted scifi plastics onto the market and you can't just rely on your overzealous legal team of attack dogs?

Shape the hell up!

Hear, hear! Well said MGS.

Although I think GW has some sort of claim on this one (but it still doesn't explain why BBC is not suing Hasslefree for making not-DW models), I still think that, whether they have a claim or not, threatening to sue at this moment in time is a PR mistake.

They are under negative views right now after the Spots the Space Marine fiasco and anything they do to defend their IP as per usual will gain them unpopularity points, whether they're in the right or not.

Looks to me like GW is trolling again.

- BW model has 4 fingers per hand, not 5 as in the GW artwork.
- BW model has 1 elbow spike, GW sketch has 2
- The pose is different
- GW sketch has multiple nasal ports, BW model has 2
- BW model has a single barrel on the gun, while GW has multiple cylinders in parallel with the barrel.

Are they close, yes. Are they the same, no. It's no different than one horse vs another horse.

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
On a more serious note. I totally understand why GW is going after these guys. Its just too similar, regardless of the legal ramifications.

That said, wouldn't GW's budget be better spent putting out a competing resin model? So instead of competing they are just shutting it down? who wins here?

Is the proper answer no one?

I think that is very much the answer. The real losers in this scenario are the customers. The only customers who would purchase the Blight Wheel model are those who either have no idea it has any connection to Games Workshop and those who are in all likelihood loyal fans and customers of Games Workshop; familiar with the obscure reference and active enough to be making a customized army for use in GW's games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


BWM pretty much stated that it is meant to be representative of Tona Criid, a sergeant of Gaunt's Ghosts.

They may very well have - but that doesn't make GW's concept protectable.

Regarding the wood stocked, high tech rifle. Common - especially out of Japan...and Star Wars too if my memory is correct (things like the T-21 and DLT-19 both had wooden stocks on them).

And, well, it is a fact that numerous, numerous, numerous firearms throughout history and today are manufactured with wooden stocks. A gun with a wooden stock is not a trope of a genre, it is in the public domain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kingsley wrote:

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:
@kingsley could you provide a link to a loxatl miniature on the GW web store please? Thanks x

The comment I was replying to pertained to the Gaunt's Ghosts knockoff, not the loxatl knockoff. I think the loxatl model is a ripoff that should be quashed but the Gaunt's Ghosts one seems like a much more clear-cut case.

You have it backwards guy. If you take a look at the issues from a perspective of the real world, rather than a view of the world with GW at the center, that is how the issues are. Any claim against that female warrior model by anyone would be nigh impossible to maintain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 spaceelf wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

Everyone (except for Grot 6), has stated that the miniature is indeed a pretty blatant copy of the Loaxtl drawing, what people are disputing is that a 3D representation of a 2D image really constitutes infringement or not (and so the ridicule of the "obvious" statement by Kingsley).

Sean_OBrien stated earlier in the thread "transformation from 2D to 3D is not normally significant enough of a transformation to be outside copyright laws on its own." I take this to mean that if there is an existing 2d drawing that is copyright, and I make a 3d sculpture based on it, then I can be sued for copyright infringement and will likely be found guilty. In the eyes of the law the transformation from 2d to 3d is not creative enough to constitute something completely different, and hence it is not out of reach of the copyright laws.

In terms of the other comments in the thread about GW copying all sorts of stuff, well of course it is true. Almost all of GWs stuff is highly derivative. They are just lucky that the people that they copied from are not a bunch of d-bags.

That's not what Sean said. The point is that 2D to 3D dos not itself bar a finding of infringement. It does, however, mean that there will always be differences between the works. That does not settle the question of whether or not those differences are insubstantial one way or the other.

nkelsch wrote:
The only thing tying the female model to 'Gaunts Ghost' is the makers own words explicitly saying it was explicitly to represent a character from GW's 'Gaunts Ghosts' characters.

Public statements like that go a long way to establish intent and make it much harder to claim, "Nah, she is just a jungle female solider we made... She is pretty muscular and not gaunt at all, and she is alive, so she isn't undead."

And this idea that someone has to be making a directly competing model for IP to be infringed upon simply isn't true. If I made a Mickey Mouse model and said "mickey Mouse doesn't make wargaming minis, Disney has no directly competing model, I am not infringing" I would be laughing all the way to the poor house as I would be sued to death.

Intent may sway opinion, but INTENT to infringe IP is not afaik illegal. My local GW manager spouts intent all the time about CHS. Intent to infringe is meaningless if no infringement actually took place.

I intend to speed on the freeway later today, but I can't be charged with it based on that intent.

This isn't fraud or murder, it's toy soldiers.

Also, Mickey Mouse's image is a major trademark and also already exists in thousands of three dimensional representations, at least one of which I'm sure is near 28mm scale.

Gaunts Ghosts are hardly some popular thing that the public would immediately identify(I still have no clue what they are, other than perhaps a few crap models posted earlier in the thread).

nkelsch wrote:
The only thing tying the female model to 'Gaunts Ghost' is the makers own words explicitly saying it was explicitly to represent a character from GW's 'Gaunts Ghosts' characters.

Public statements like that go a long way to establish intent and make it much harder to claim, "Nah, she is just a jungle female solider we made... She is pretty muscular and not gaunt at all, and she is alive, so she isn't undead."

And this idea that someone has to be making a directly competing model for IP to be infringed upon simply isn't true. If I made a Mickey Mouse model and said "mickey Mouse doesn't make wargaming minis, Disney has no directly competing model, I am not infringing" I would be laughing all the way to the poor house as I would be sued to death.

In the US, there is solid precedent establishing that intention to copy does not supersede similarity. There must be substantial similarity, regardless of intent. I can say that I am copying your drawing. I can videotape myself doing it. I can swear under oath that it was my express intent to copy your drawing in every conceivable detail. But regardless of my intent, my attempt to copy may fail so horribly as to not actually be a copy at all and in fact could be my own protectable work of art.

Without trying to be condescending, do you understand the concept? I ask because I can go into more detail if you would like. Bill Patry has a very interesting blog post about it too.

Edit: Aerethan - You are on the right track. I may intend to speed on the freeway, but if my car can only get up to 60 mph, I haven't actually gone over the speed limit, no matter how hard I push on the accelerator. I may, in fact, believe that I am speeding, if for example my speedometer is broken. I may even admit to speeding when pulled over by a cop. But if the officer lasered me at 60 mph and pulled me over for a busted tail light (do you expect that heap to have two working tail lights), the officer cannot write me a ticket for speeding.

I will admit that this is a much better example for GW to go after than 'Spot the Space Marine'.

In this case, even if Blightworld does take it to court there is a goodly chance that GW can back up their claim.

And, as an aside... why the heck would you sling the gun under the head? That is a crappy place for the gun, regardless of manufactor. More likely to have LOS blocked, more susceptible to environmental damage, worse clearance.... so, why?

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I will admit that this is a much better example for GW to go after than 'Spot the Space Marine'.

In this case, even if Blightworld does take it to court there is a goodly chance that GW can back up their claim.

And, as an aside... why the heck would you sling the gun under the head? That is a crappy place for the gun, regardless of manufactor. More likely to have LOS blocked, more susceptible to environmental damage, worse clearance.... so, why?

The Auld Grump

The more important question is how in the heck can that lizard reach it's bandoleer of ammo? I guess it is just there to make the lizard feel like a bad!

weeble1000 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
The only thing tying the female model to 'Gaunts Ghost' is the makers own words explicitly saying it was explicitly to represent a character from GW's 'Gaunts Ghosts' characters.

Public statements like that go a long way to establish intent and make it much harder to claim, "Nah, she is just a jungle female solider we made... She is pretty muscular and not gaunt at all, and she is alive, so she isn't undead."

And this idea that someone has to be making a directly competing model for IP to be infringed upon simply isn't true. If I made a Mickey Mouse model and said "mickey Mouse doesn't make wargaming minis, Disney has no directly competing model, I am not infringing" I would be laughing all the way to the poor house as I would be sued to death.

In the US, there is solid precedent establishing that intention to copy does not supersede similarity. There must be substantial similarity, regardless of intent. I can say that I am copying your drawing. I can videotape myself doing it. I can swear under oath that it was my express intent to copy your drawing in every conceivable detail. But regardless of my intent, my attempt to copy may fail so horribly as to not actually be a copy at all and in fact could be my own protectable work of art.

Without trying to be condescending, do you understand the concept? I ask because I can go into more detail if you would like. Bill Patry has a very interesting blog post about it too.

Are you saying a copy may not infringe because it simply doesn't look like the result or it was a bad attempt? I would say some of the models out there currently going through this exact situation are models which are similar enough and they publicly proclaimed them to be copied off of official art/designs/characters/trademarks.

If the attempt is close, like the lizard in question, and they have evidence of the creators publicly commenting they directly copied it off of GW's concept art, are you saying that providing that 'intent' means nothing? Or only means something if the result is 'close enough'

I know in Copyrights you can 'claim' independent creation where you claim to have never seen or have no knowledge of the infringed upon source. Such discussions of trademark or direct copying makes that defense not relevant. (not that I am saying they are claiming their komodo cyborg whatever is an independent creation)

From my (admittedly shaky) memory, I think the Loaxatl weapons have some kind of autoloading mechanism which also serves to rotate the weapon around their torso so they can still shoot stuff while wall-climbing.

Those that are saying the Blightwheel mini is being give away free have got it slightly wrong

They intend(ed?) to give it away ONLY to those who bought £50+ of blight wheel product on the day, so it was intended to sell product

slightly different from a first come first served freebie on a stall, or a mini given away to anybody attending the salute show

The mini itself is clearly based off the GW art and as such blight wheel should have been prepared for trouble. It's no different from Legendarion producing minis based on old Rackham art.

either get a licence from the original artist (the right way to do things),

make significant changes eg clearly different gun/gun mount or lizard (there are oh so many real life ones to copy, why do one just like that)

stay in a jurisdiction where the law either lets you do it (or just isn't enforced),

be prepared to bin the work you've done when you get a letter like this

or be prepared to fight your corner in court

as a commercial organisation distributing your work the choice is yours

(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)

But when the very person who has committed the same crime, multiple times, is pointing the finger at you, crying 'j'accuse' and demanding recompense from you for your temerity... well, it makes it all the more contemptible and derisive.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)

But isn't exactly because of this that the Clean Hands Doctrine exists?

Couldn't Blight Wheel invoke it in a case like this?

nkelsch wrote:

I know in Copyrights you can 'claim' independent creation where you claim to have never seen or have no knowledge of the infringed upon source. Such discussions of trademark or direct copying makes that defense not relevant. (not that I am saying they are claiming their komodo cyborg whatever is an independent creation)

How common is the book in which the image exists? I was under the impression it was a bestiary supplement that is no longer published.

Would it affect the case if the sculptor based the sculpture on the description and it just happens to look like an obsolete image (chosen specifically because it looks like the figure). There are only so many ways one can draw a komodo dragon with a bionic implant and a bandolier fed chest cannon.

PhantomViper wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)

But isn't exactly because of this that the Clean Hands Doctrine exists?

Couldn't Blight Wheel invoke it in a case like this?

Did GW steal the Loxatl from someone else and is there an example where it is directly infringing upon someone else's properties? It would be fun to watch someone try to argue it in court, but to try to claim everything GW does infringes so nothing they do is protect-able seems like a hard case to make and would be an uphill battle.

nkelsch wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)

But isn't exactly because of this that the Clean Hands Doctrine exists?

Couldn't Blight Wheel invoke it in a case like this?

Did GW steal the Loxatl from someone else and is there an example where it is directly infringing upon someone else's properties? It would be fun to watch someone try to argue it in court, but to try to claim everything GW does infringes so nothing they do is protect-able seems like a hard case to make and would be an uphill battle.

Ignoring this specific model, the second part you said is correct. Juts because GW has questionable ownership and practices on some of it's products does not negate the legitimacy of other products outright.

Which is why IP law is handled on a case by case basis. GW may not own the Ultramarine symbol even though they claim to, but that doesn't mean that GW doesn't own the Warhammer 40,000 logo or other obvious original copyrights.

GW does have plenty of copyrights that are legitimate, and that legitimacy isn't ever lost because GW sued and (theoretically) lost over some other item that was in dispute.

nkelsch wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)

But isn't exactly because of this that the Clean Hands Doctrine exists?

Couldn't Blight Wheel invoke it in a case like this?

Did GW steal the Loxatl from someone else and is there an example where it is directly infringing upon someone else's properties? It would be fun to watch someone try to argue it in court, but to try to claim everything GW does infringes so nothing they do is protect-able seems like a hard case to make and would be an uphill battle.

The Loxatl does not have to be the specific model that GW has copied from somewhere, nor does it have to be everything that GW has ever done, for the Clean Hands Doctrine to take effect. Prior in this thread somebody posted a picture of an Alien next to a Tyranid. See, GW has Dirty Hands...

GW wants another disastrous lawsuit it seems. Because the first one worked out so great for them.

nkelsch wrote:
Are you saying a copy may not infringe because it simply doesn't look like the result or it was a bad attempt?

Yep. That is exactly what I am saying. Intent is probative of access, but access can already be inferred by similarity alone.

In order to copy something, you have to have the thing you want to copy. This is a good way to cut to the core of what copyright really means. It means copying. It is impossible to copy something that you do not know exists, or that you do not have any access to. Similarity, even 100% exact similarity, would then be inactionable coincidence, assuming that one could prove lack of access, because copying could not have possibly taken place.

Precedent contemplates that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you probably saw the duck at some point. However, if we engage in a Talmud-esque intellectual exercise; If I was living on Mars my entire life, and created my work of art on Mars, such that it would have been impossible for me to have had access to your work of art, it is impossible for me to have copied said work, even if the two works are exactly 100% the same. Maybe aliens beamed it into both of our heads or something.

Similarity really is not the important part of copyright law, copying is the important part. Establishing substantial similarity is a means to prove copying, but only because precedent contemplates that one cannot avoid a finding of copying by making "insignificant" alterations to a work of art. But therein lies the intellectual snake pit. Conceptually, it is a good idea. You wouldn't want someone to photocopy your drawing, put a red dot in the bottom corner, and say, "this is not a copy." Technically, no, it is not a literal copy, but it would copy everything that makes your work unique, possibly without having any uniqueness of its own. But who is to say a mustache on the Mona Lisa is not 'art'?

What makes a work of art a work of art? What is an "insignificant" difference? What is a "significant" difference? Case law points to many different 'tests' that courts have used to draw a (somewhat) objective standard around this thorny issue. There is the "ordinary observer" test, the "more discerning observer" test, the "total concept and feel" test, and the "fragmented literal similarity" test, to name a few.

You can't just say, "I know a copy when I see a copy." That is not good enough when it comes to the law, or rather that should not be good enough. Between an exact, literal, 100%, dictionary definition of a copy; and a similar, but unique, work of art is a treacherous jungle of subjectivity. The law provides some crude tools with which to hack away at the brush, but you really have to know where you are going in order to get any use out of them.

Within this metaphor, I would say that copying is the north star, and originality is your compass. As I have said before, intellectual property is not intellectual because it exists in your mind; it is intellectual because it is the product of your intellect. Artists only get to protect the work that they do, not the work that anyone else has done and not the work that someone else might do in the future. Thus, originality and copying are essential guides. What makes a work of art different from the work of other artists? What has the artists drawn from the public domain? What remains? The remainder is the artwork. It is the "protected expression" that is the sole extent of one's rights.

Expression - That which is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. That which actually exists outside of your mind as a tangible artifact.

Protected - That which among your expression is original to you, and only to you.

In order to make a copy one must steal protected expression. Everything else is fair game.

Steelmage99 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

(this is not to say I don't think GW has 'borrowed' stuff in similar fashion in the past......., but just because somebody else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to do it too)

But isn't exactly because of this that the Clean Hands Doctrine exists?

Couldn't Blight Wheel invoke it in a case like this?

Did GW steal the Loxatl from someone else and is there an example where it is directly infringing upon someone else's properties? It would be fun to watch someone try to argue it in court, but to try to claim everything GW does infringes so nothing they do is protect-able seems like a hard case to make and would be an uphill battle.

The Loxatl does not have to be the specific model that GW has copied from somewhere, nor does it have to be everything that GW has ever done, for the Clean Hands Doctrine to take effect. Prior in this thread somebody posted a picture of an Alien next to a Tyranid. See, GW has Dirty Hands...

Clean Hands Doctrine applies to the subject matter being disputed. It means that as long as GW wasn't/can't be sued for copying the art from someone else, then they are "clean" on that item.

It does not apply to every item the company has ever released. If H.R. Geiger wanted to sue GW he might have something, but until he does, GW is clean on it.

Given that the model is inspired by lizards / dinosaurs can they really claim IP? Where do you draw the line? A human Cyborg model could look very similar to an unarmoured Space Marine. What's stopping them (GW) from laying claim to that type of look?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You know, GW could just make Loxatl minis, straight from their own artwork, cheaper and perhaps even a better sculpt than the blightwheel one and let the market decide if they really do make 'the best model soldiers in the world'.

For all we know they could be doing that, but we won't find out until a week before Lizardmen in Space hit the shelves.

That thing is an obvious copy... you can't even defend that.

 Rainyday wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
You know, GW could just make Loxatl minis, straight from their own artwork, cheaper and perhaps even a better sculpt than the blightwheel one and let the market decide if they really do make 'the best model soldiers in the world'.

For all we know they could be doing that, but we'll never know until a week before Lizardmen in Space hit the shelves.

If we're going to see Loxatl, it won't be from GW.

It would be from Forge World...and considering that there were in fact rumblings of "Loxatl Mercenaries" playing a part in the original Imperial Armour 12 concept(An Imperial prison colony suffers an uprising orchestrated by Tzeentchian cultists within the prison population, with outside support from a Blood Pact-esque group of traitor guardsmen who come to the aid of the cultists and then further set up a ritual to summon the Thousand Sons to the prison for some dark and nefarious purpose), there's the possibility that such things were coming.