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.

nkelsch wrote:The Image you show is a different sculpt than what was in the original picture. It may be that the parts sculpted on GW parts never made it to production, or maybe they did and they quickly remade it? No one will know but it doesn't mean GW is lying or perjured themselves... That is the whole issue. I don't see how anyone can be like "GW is clearly lying" when stuff like this exists all over the internet and 'doubt' of origins of some pieces and the process to production can be called into question. They may not have the right to discovery of CHs process but they certainly do have the right to level accusations made based off images like this.

The bit people are questioning is "Chapterhouse’s [sic] admits access and copying" - while I believe access is a given, due to how widely spread/known GW stuff is, I'm fairly sure that at no point CH have admitted copying. If they had, I'm sure this case would be looking more in GW's favour than it is at the minute.

I have actually pitched an idea to Chapterhouse: They pay a small royalty from their profits to GW for using their intellectual property, and in return, GW stops trying to sue them. In addition, Chapterhouse could potentially become a partner company to GW (this would NOT be a full on merge) and GW might even advertise their products in White Dwarf.

Dysartes wrote:

nkelsch wrote:The Image you show is a different sculpt than what was in the original picture. It may be that the parts sculpted on GW parts never made it to production, or maybe they did and they quickly remade it? No one will know but it doesn't mean GW is lying or perjured themselves... That is the whole issue. I don't see how anyone can be like "GW is clearly lying" when stuff like this exists all over the internet and 'doubt' of origins of some pieces and the process to production can be called into question. They may not have the right to discovery of CHs process but they certainly do have the right to level accusations made based off images like this.

The bit people are questioning is "Chapterhouse’s [sic] admits access and copying" - while I believe access is a given, due to how widely spread/known GW stuff is, I'm fairly sure that at no point CH have admitted copying. If they had, I'm sure this case would be looking more in GW's favour than it is at the minute.

Go re-read some of the 2009 threads, some of the comments come damn close to admitting copying GW stuff and 'there is not a damn thing they can do about it'. Who knows how many other places that flamefest was fought on the internet and what else was said in the public record.

It may not meet the standard for the court, but I can totally see why GW would put forth the idea "Chapterhouse’s [sic] admits access and copying" when they were copyrighting sculpts using GW copyrighting parts as blanks (even if they never made it to production) and lots of the comments made out there on the internet.

Squigsquasher wrote:I have actually pitched an idea to Chapterhouse: They pay a small royalty from their profits to GW for using their intellectual property, and in return, GW stops trying to sue them. In addition, Chapterhouse could potentially become a partner company to GW (this would NOT be a full on merge) and GW might even advertise their products in White Dwarf.

Never going to happen. GW don't like other companies.

Squigsquasher wrote:I have actually pitched an idea to Chapterhouse: They pay a small royalty from their profits to GW for using their intellectual property, and in return, GW stops trying to sue them. In addition, Chapterhouse could potentially become a partner company to GW (this would NOT be a full on merge) and GW might even advertise their products in White Dwarf.

What you're suggesting is called licensing and isn't a case of a small royalty. Try hundreds of thousand if not millions for a limited period ala FFG and THQ. You would also have to give approval to GW as well. The smaller nature of CH wouldn't reduce the cost at all. You seem to be suggesting almost a open license that would allow any Tom dick or Harry to use GW ip if the send a few pence per mini over. That would be a good way to loose control of said IP, but I digress.

I can't see GWs claim that CH admits access (that is surely self evident) and copying as particularly far fetched. I'm not sure how a company that states it makes components for Warhammer 40k could refute this, although I would also suggest that the use of the word copying in this context doesn't mean direct copies but rather stylistically.

It's perfectly legitimate to copy non-copyright material.

If GW want to accuse CH of illegal copying the first hurdle they face is to prove that the material copied was their copyright anyway.

This is why the case is a two-edged sword. If handled wrongly, the result could be to deprive GW of a lot of the materials they currently claim as their intellectual property.

notprop wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:I have actually pitched an idea to Chapterhouse: They pay a small royalty from their profits to GW for using their intellectual property, and in return, GW stops trying to sue them. In addition, Chapterhouse could potentially become a partner company to GW (this would NOT be a full on merge) and GW might even advertise their products in White Dwarf.

What you're suggesting is called licensing and isn't a case of a small royalty. Try hundreds of thousand if not millions for a limited period ala FFG and THQ. You would also have to give approval to GW as well. The smaller nature of CH wouldn't reduce the cost at all. You seem to be suggesting almost a open license that would allow any Tom dick or Harry to use GW ip if the send a few pence per mini over. That would be a good way to loose control of said IP, but I digress.

I can't see GWs claim that CH admits access (that is surely self evident) and copying as particularly far fetched. I'm not sure how a company that states it makes components for Warhammer 40k could refute this, although I would also suggest that the use of the word copying in this context doesn't mean direct copies but rather stylistically.

Also, GW already has a company that makes upgrades, alternatives, and army-specific details (Forge World), so there's no niche to fill. It would also be similar to allowing other companies to produce GW-based video games (where THQ's licensing would be worth less to them, and implicitly GW's licensing would have lesser value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly legitimate to copy non-copyright material.

If GW want to accuse CH of illegal copying the first hurdle they face is to prove that the material copied was their copyright anyway.

This is why the case is a two-edged sword. If handled wrongly, the result could be to deprive GW of a lot of the materials they currently claim as their intellectual property.

As far as I understand, basically, as soon as something is published (or the equivalent), it is implicitly legally copyrighted, and anything extra done to express the copyright is mostly to make it more difficult for anyone to claim ignorance of copyright if sued.

Kanluwen wrote:What product do you have to buy to use the Doomseer or Scorpion Warrior Lady, Aerethan?

At least two troops choices (Guardians, Dire Avengers or Rangers) for the Doomseer and a HQ, two troops choices and a squad of Striking Scorpions for the not-exarch.

Chapterhouse sells supplementary products, you still need tons of GW models and the appropriate codices. The problem is the law of supply and demand. There is lots of demand GW is unwilling to satisfy. For example for Thunderwolves or female models. That's where other suppliers come in (whose products afaik are illegal in GW-sponsored tournaments). The only thing that sets Chapterhouse apart here is that they openly say that their products are meant for 40k. If GW wanted the money they should do what others do. Look for what people want and produce it. I find it mind-boggling how much money they waste alone by not making products that accompany licensed works.

I recommend you read about derivative works:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that you may only copyright the exact item/representation of your idea not every permutation of the idea.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly legitimate to copy non-copyright material.

If GW want to accuse CH of illegal copying the first hurdle they face is to prove that the material copied was their copyright anyway.

This is why the case is a two-edged sword. If handled wrongly, the result could be to deprive GW of a lot of the materials they currently claim as their intellectual property.

But that is not the subject of this case. Messers Geiger, Moorcock et al that are often named at this point haven't raised any objections to date that I know of nor is there any sight of that on the horizon.

agnosto wrote:I recommend you read about derivative works:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that you may only copyright the exact item/representation of your idea not every permutation of the idea.

I'm not sure if that was directed to me, the poster between us, or the general forum, but, either way, thanks for the link.

agnosto wrote:I recommend you read about derivative works:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that you may only copyright the exact item/representation of your idea not every permutation of the idea.

You may want to read a little bit more. Creating/authorizing derivative works is a right reserved for the original copyright holder.

That said, GW still has the burden of first proving that 1) they actually own the copyrights being asserted in this case; and 2) that CH's works infringe on them in some way. But even before that, they need to 0) tell CH and the court which copyrights are allegedly infringed.

I really don't understand their litigation strategy here.

More information is never a bad thing. It was an interesting read but didn't answer all my questions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Janthkin wrote:

agnosto wrote:I recommend you read about derivative works:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that you may only copyright the exact item/representation of your idea not every permutation of the idea.

You may want to read a little bit more. Creating/authorizing derivative works is a right reserved for the original copyright holder.

That said, GW still has the burden of first proving that 1) they actually own the copyrights being asserted in this case; and 2) that CH's works infringe on them in some way. But even before that, they need to 0) tell CH and the court which copyrights are allegedly infringed.

I really don't understand their litigation strategy here.

I saw that part but it wasn't conclusive in my mind; I was just thinking how much of the original work constitutes the need for auhtorization, the basic shape? Like I said, I'm not a lawyer and didn't want to take the time to read the actual law involved.

nkelsch wrote:
The copyrighted image from CH shows GS sculpted on GW copyrighted parts. Just because CH has since realized they can't do that doesn't mean CH didn't start with illegal recasts... No one knows hence the lawsuit. The Image you show is a different sculpt than what was in the original picture. It may be that the parts sculpted on GW parts never made it to production, or maybe they did and they quickly remade it? No one will know but it doesn't mean GW is lying or perjured themselves...That is the whole issue. I don't see how anyone can be like "GW is clearly lying" when stuff like this exists all over the internet and 'doubt' of origins of some pieces and the process to production can be called into question.

First GW's lawsuit initially didn't have anything to do with illegal recasts, at best its a new assertion made in escalation only in this most recent happenings; GW's original assertion were over trademark issues with the use of its product names.

Second, CH can own the copyright of the photo even if it contains a GW piece in it.

Third early test sculpts aren't the same as producing illegal recasts, and the simple fact is without that proof they can't make that type of specific allegation even if it deserves closer scrutiny. GW said CH "admits access and copying," but CH doesn't admit copying... even if CH were copying its a lie to say they admit it.

Fourth I have personal knowledge of when CH decided it needed blanks it could use; they had already commissioned digital blank models so they could have them produced for their own development when that specific test sculpt was done.

nkelsch wrote:They may not have the right to discovery of CHs process but they certainly do have the right to level accusations made based off images like this.

The problem is they aren't leveling an accusation "we believe CH has admitted...." they are asserting factually a very specific point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Janthkin wrote:
That said, GW still has the burden of first proving that 1) they actually own the copyrights being asserted in this case; and 2) that CH's works infringe on them in some way. But even before that, they need to 0) tell CH and the court which copyrights are allegedly infringed.

I really don't understand their litigation strategy here.

And as you know at this point they're avoiding what's actually their duty as the claimed copyright holder. To put it a different GW avoidance on that aspect of their case, just means if the judge hypothetically decided to arbitrarily say GW was right, it'd be a big gaping hole and strong basis for appeal.

spiralingcadaver wrote:

notprop wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:I have actually pitched an idea to Chapterhouse: They pay a small royalty from their profits to GW for using their intellectual property, and in return, GW stops trying to sue them. In addition, Chapterhouse could potentially become a partner company to GW (this would NOT be a full on merge) and GW might even advertise their products in White Dwarf.

What you're suggesting is called licensing and isn't a case of a small royalty. Try hundreds of thousand if not millions for a limited period ala FFG and THQ. You would also have to give approval to GW as well. The smaller nature of CH wouldn't reduce the cost at all. You seem to be suggesting almost a open license that would allow any Tom dick or Harry to use GW ip if the send a few pence per mini over. That would be a good way to loose control of said IP, but I digress.

I can't see GWs claim that CH admits access (that is surely self evident) and copying as particularly far fetched. I'm not sure how a company that states it makes components for Warhammer 40k could refute this, although I would also suggest that the use of the word copying in this context doesn't mean direct copies but rather stylistically.

Also, GW already has a company that makes upgrades, alternatives, and army-specific details (Forge World), so there's no niche to fill. It would also be similar to allowing other companies to produce GW-based video games (where THQ's licensing would be worth less to them, and implicitly GW's licensing would have lesser value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly legitimate to copy non-copyright material.

If GW want to accuse CH of illegal copying the first hurdle they face is to prove that the material copied was their copyright anyway.

This is why the case is a two-edged sword. If handled wrongly, the result could be to deprive GW of a lot of the materials they currently claim as their intellectual property.

As far as I understand, basically, as soon as something is published (or the equivalent), it is implicitly legally copyrighted, and anything extra done to express the copyright is mostly to make it more difficult for anyone to claim ignorance of copyright if sued.

Things are only copyright if they are sufficiently original to be copyrightable. GW could not copyright an octagon. They arguably could not copyright a Rhino door of octagonal shape -- it's just an octagon with a bezel. They can and do claim a copyright in such parts but until tested in court it isn't proved. Hence the jeopardy for them.

aka_mythos wrote:
First GW's lawsuit initially didn't have anything to do with illegal recasts, at best its a new assertion made in escalation only in this most recent happenings; GW's original assertion were over trademark issues with the use of its product names.

Second, CH can own the copyright of the photo even if it contains a GW piece in it.

Third early test sculpts aren't the same as producing illegal recasts, and the simple fact is without that proof they can't make that type of specific allegation even if it deserves closer scrutiny. GW said CH "admits access and copying," but CH doesn't admit copying... even if CH were copying its a lie to say they admit it.

Fourth I have personal knowledge of when CH decided it needed blanks it could use; they had already commissioned digital blank models so they could have them produced for their own development when that specific test sculpt was done.

Looking at the 'early test sculpt' I must say that the snakes are to my eyes at least the exact snakes that appear on the final piece. to my eyes, that leads me to believe that they did the sculpting, but did not permanently attach them to the GW pieces, mainly only using those parts for scaling purposes.

Both snakes look exactly as they do on both of the pieces, which a rescuplt from scratch would not likely have the same odd looking bulges in the same exact places on both. so, I do not believe at any time any GW product was ever recast in this exact part.

IANAL of course. (I am not a lawyer if you don't understand the acronym, it's used on fark a lot, can't recall if I've ever seen it here)

The final product snake doors are very much different than the GW "original" ones.

jmurph wrote:Yeah, the arm chair lawyering by those with no background gets old, but THIS IS THE INTERWEBZ! Where people aren't about to let the lack of having the slightest idea what they are talking about slow them down one bit! ;-)

And they'll get angry at others for disagreeing.

So...what your saying is we need to bug a Dakka member who is actually a practicing lawyer, for info on this subject? And don't look at me, my only expertise is in Political Science and History.

The doors in the final piece are completely different, they have panel lines, grills and other details in different places.

KingmanHighborn wrote:

jmurph wrote:Yeah, the arm chair lawyering by those with no background gets old, but THIS IS THE INTERWEBZ! Where people aren't about to let the lack of having the slightest idea what they are talking about slow them down one bit! ;-)

And they'll get angry at others for disagreeing.

So...what your saying is we need to bug a Dakka member who is actually a practicing lawyer, for info on this subject? And don't look at me, my only expertise is in Political Science and History.

You've already had info from one in the last page who so. See if you can spot who it is.

Squigsquasher wrote:I have actually pitched an idea to Chapterhouse: They pay a small royalty from their profits to GW for using their intellectual property, and in return, GW stops trying to sue them.

How about this idea: Every time you draw an arrow or Roman number or use the words human, elf or dwarf, you pay me 10$ and I promise not to sue you

So...what's the new info?

Ogryn wrote:So...what's the new info?

Not much, the meeting to reach a settlement didn't go anywhere. Later on GW say CHS aren't cooperating fully so want an extension to solve this, CHS say GW are talking rubbish and haven't got grounds for anything. So it's rolled over until next week.

A few bits regarding the photo showing chapter house sculpted snakes on GW doors.

1) the copyright (if it is suitable to have one for the piece in question) for the GW parts remains that of GW.

2) the copyright to the derivative work (it's new form with sculpted bits) belongs to chapterhouse, though cannot necessarily sell without breaching GWs copyright (see above).

3) the copyright for the photograph remains with the photographer, though they cannot necessarily use it to profit without infringing both the aforementioned parties claims to copyright.

This is why copyright is often decided in court, it is silly and complex. So in fact chapter house can stick "copyright of chapter house in it as depending on context it is correct.

However they simplified things by changing it for production.

Though a question for the more legal types is do some of GWs actions regarding restraint of use of third party parts, if it is proven those parts are kosher and not infringing, are there any implications regarding restraint of fair trade?

After all I can receive a phone call on my orange mobile phone in vodafone shop or can recommend to my friend a tv that isn't sonyin the Sony shop. However I cannot use my third party thunder wolves in a GW shop and cannot recommend alternative suppliers in a GW store. GWs actions are certainly unusually zealous in this regarding and will have definitely had an adverse effect on third party businesses.

Howard A Treesong wrote:The doors in the final piece are completely different, they have panel lines, grills and other details in different places.

The spears are different too.

If it is so easy to prove they are not recasts, why not just do it? Saying 'our process is proprietary, so butt out' is also a gamble as it gives a judge the ability to imply things that you are not willing to disclose.

nkelsch wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:The doors in the final piece are completely different, they have panel lines, grills and other details in different places.

The spears are different too.

If it is so easy to prove they are not recasts, why not just do it? Saying 'our process is proprietary, so butt out' is also a gamble as it gives a judge the ability to imply things that you are not willing to disclose.

GW has to say "these doors with shields on them are copies" before CH can say "no they aren't and here is why..." Its a problem that GW hasn't provided anything to show that anythings been copied. This is why CH can't really make a counter argument besides "show us what we've done wrong."

aka_mythos wrote:

nkelsch wrote:If it is so easy to prove they are not recasts, why not just do it? Saying 'our process is proprietary, so butt out' is also a gamble as it gives a judge the ability to imply things that you are not willing to disclose.

GW has to say "these doors with shields on them are copies" before CH can say "no they aren't and here is why..." Its a problem that GW hasn't provided anything to show that anythings been copied. This is why CH can't really make a counter argument besides "show us what we've done wrong."

That's my understanding too - GW appears to have claimed that everything CH have done is in breach of copyright/trademark/insert-correct-IP-term-here, but so far they're unwilling to state what it is that CH are copying. I gather this evidence should have shown up during the discovery phase of this case.

Once GW produces a list of "CH product A is a copy of GW product 13", then CH can start to disprove those claims on a part by part basis. Until they do that, it looks like the correct approach from CH is the one they're using - sit back, comply with what the judge requests/enforces, and wait for GW to be specific.

The judge should finally put an end to this ridiculous lawsuit before making a fool of himself.
If GW is unwilling to make a proper accusation, there simply is no case.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's perfectly legitimate to copy non-copyright material.

If GW want to accuse CH of illegal copying the first hurdle they face is to prove that the material copied was their copyright anyway.

This is why the case is a two-edged sword. If handled wrongly, the result could be to deprive GW of a lot of the materials they currently claim as their intellectual property.

Just to make sure I and everybody else understands you: You don't mean that GW will lose access to their products but that it becomes official that you are allowed to sell 40k products even if you are not GW, as long as they are not copies, right?

Mjoellnir wrote:Just to make sure I and everybody else understands you: You don't mean that GW will lose access to their products but that it becomes official that you are allowed to sell 40k products even if you are not GW, as long as they are not copies, right?

Independent stockists already do this.

If you mean selling products that are not GW 40k (or copies of) but can be used to enhance GW produced 40k items; or be things that can be used in 40k, then yes. GW only has the ability to copyright that which it has produced. It cannot copyright an "essence" of a product. I really feel that this case will mirror the story "The Emperors New Clothes" in that GW has propped up the fallacy that all things are their copyright when in fact, it isnt, and that the reverse can be said of their obtaining "inspiration" from the works of others (Geiger's aliens, Japanese manga etc).

GW will survive this and I feel will become a stronger company for it. I also feel that should this swing CH's way, we will be on the cusp of a creative wave of independents willing to expand the GW inspired universe.