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.

Spacemanvic wrote:

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.

I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.

brettz123 wrote:I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.

Really? I predict the following strategies being implemented by GW.

More secrecy.

Raise prices.

Rinse and repeat.

Kilkrazy wrote:

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.

To be honest, I think is going to expose that GW doesnt hold the intellectual property it thinks it holds on many terms and models and ideas.

Dysartes wrote:

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.

It seems GW's case is the equivalent to an ex-gf who, when asked why the couple broke up, replies "he knows what he did."

brettz123 wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote: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.

I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.

Given that GW rely upon the sales of miniatures for their profitability - a profitability which, as a publicly floated company, they must maintain - this result would be unlikely to mean anything beneficial to us, the players. If their profits from miniature sales fall, then other costs will have to be cut, which would probably necessitate fewer stores, fewer studio staff and less-frequent codex updates, particularly for the slower-selling (read xenos) armies. It might even be the thing to tip them over the edge and outsource production to China or relocate to the Caymans for tax purposes.

There is something of an ethical (as distinct from legal) case against Chapterhouse, given that it is GW who have invested (and risked) their capital over decades to create, develop and promote our hobby, something off which Chapterhouse now seek to profit without ever having made such an investment. Now I realise that's it's unusual to find GW occupying anything resembling the moral high ground, but I'm surprised that this point hasn't been raised before.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

brettz123 wrote:I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.

Really? I predict the following strategies being implemented by GW.

More secrecy.

Raise prices.

Rinse and repeat.

Then GW can stuff it as others surpass GW. Simple as. If they adopt the above strategy (as they've done somewhat), then they are just being self destructive.

English Assassin wrote:There is something of an ethical (as distinct from legal) case against Chapterhouse, given that it is GW who have invested (and risked) their capital over decades to create, develop and promote our hobby, something off which Chapterhouse now seek to profit without ever having made such an investment. Now I realise that's it's unusual to find GW occupying anything resembling the moral high ground, but I'm surprised that this point hasn't been raised before.

We'll see. But I think GW are in an ethically murky place if they have been bullying other companies through claiming copyrights on things they don't actually own. And bullying is the word for it IMO because GW send a nasty letter and the little guy backs down because they can't afford the fight. That's what happens in an industry with only one or a few big players and lots of little guys.

I don't believe this is healthy for the hobby particularly in light of the spree of C&Ds GW sent out a few years ago.

English Assassin wrote:

brettz123 wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote: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.

I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.

Given that GW rely upon the sales of miniatures for their profitability - a profitability which, as a publicly floated company, they must maintain - this result would be unlikely to mean anything beneficial to us, the players. If their profits from miniature sales fall, then other costs will have to be cut, which would probably necessitate fewer stores, fewer studio staff and less-frequent codex updates, particularly for the slower-selling (read xenos) armies. It might even be the thing to tip them over the edge and outsource production to China or relocate to the Caymans for tax purposes.

There is something of an ethical (as distinct from legal) case against Chapterhouse, given that it is GW who have invested (and risked) their capital over decades to create, develop and promote our hobby, something off which Chapterhouse now seek to profit without ever having made such an investment. Now I realise that's it's unusual to find GW occupying anything resembling the moral high ground, but I'm surprised that this point hasn't been raised before.

GW and ethics havent met for a number of years.

As it is, I purchase product from other companies to supplement my standing armies/terrain (due in very large part to their bloated pricing), havent found the need to buy their advert WD in quite a while, and havent frequented a GW store in well over 5 years. GW does have some things produced in China already btw.

English Assassin wrote:

brettz123 wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote: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.

I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.

Given that GW rely upon the sales of miniatures for their profitability - a profitability which, as a publicly floated company, they must maintain - this result would be unlikely to mean anything beneficial to us, the players. If their profits from miniature sales fall, then other costs will have to be cut, which would probably necessitate fewer stores, fewer studio staff and less-frequent codex updates, particularly for the slower-selling (read xenos) armies. It might even be the thing to tip them over the edge and outsource production to China or relocate to the Caymans for tax purposes.

There is something of an ethical (as distinct from legal) case against Chapterhouse, given that it is GW who have invested (and risked) their capital over decades to create, develop and promote our hobby, something off which Chapterhouse now seek to profit without ever having made such an investment. Now I realise that's it's unusual to find GW occupying anything resembling the moral high ground, but I'm surprised that this point hasn't been raised before.

It has. Not everyone agrees on that point, and it's off-topic for this thread.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

English Assassin wrote:There is something of an ethical (as distinct from legal) case against Chapterhouse, given that it is GW who have invested (and risked) their capital over decades to create, develop and promote our hobby, something off which Chapterhouse now seek to profit without ever having made such an investment. Now I realise that's it's unusual to find GW occupying anything resembling the moral high ground, but I'm surprised that this point hasn't been raised before.

We'll see. But I think GW are in an ethically murky place if they have been bullying other companies through claiming copyrights on things they don't actually own. And bullying is the word for it IMO because GW send a nasty letter and the little guy backs down because they can't afford the fight. That's what happens in an industry with only one or a few big players and lots of little guys.

I don't believe this is healthy for the hobby particularly in light of the spree of C&Ds GW sent out a few years ago.

If GW loses the case against CH, I would hope that the results of the case give's GW pause the next time it excercises this tact of flooding C&D.

Spacemanvic wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

brettz123 wrote:I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.

Really? I predict the following strategies being implemented by GW.

More secrecy.

Raise prices.

Rinse and repeat.

Then GW can stuff it as others surpass GW. Simple as. If they adopt the above strategy (as they've done somewhat), then they are just being self destructive.

I think we've been waiting for some time for a company to surpass GW, but lets be honest...that day isnt coming. Yeah sure there are a lot of other really great games out there...but till those games get there own store with staff to bring people into the hobby....GW will always be the 700lb donkey in the room

Dysartes wrote:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND PLEADINGS wrote:
Chapterhouse’s admits access and copying

Should this have repercussions?

I see what the issue is now, thanks. I don't think this is perjury because it appears to be a conclusion that GW has reached based on CH's comments. If this were a serious assertion, they should have made a reference to where and how CH admitted copying.

Also, I don't think GW is trying to bury this and later claim that CH hasn't denied copying, because that strategy doesn't work in a regular motion. If they wanted CH to admit to copying, they could submit the proper discovery form (Request for Admission maybe?).

spiralingcadaver wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote: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.

Yes, the basic assumption should be that something (everything) is copyrighted because copyright exists as soon as the work is published. If you see a copyright mark (c) then that is being done to provide notice to potential infringers. It helps you recover damages later.

The issue here is that GW may not actually own the copyright of everything that they published. In order to show you own a copyright you must have to show that there is an assignment from the creator to GW, or that there was some legal obligation to transfer the work, or that the work was work for hire. Presumably GW is going to have a tough time showing this. And if GW can't show that they are the actual owners of the copyrighted work, then they can't sue for infringement of that work. Someone will still own the copyright, but if GW can't prove they own it, they could have problems in future cases.

biccat wrote:The issue here is that GW may not actually own the copyright of everything that they published. In order to show you own a copyright you must have to show that there is an assignment from the creator to GW, or that there was some legal obligation to transfer the work, or that the work was work for hire. Presumably GW is going to have a tough time showing this. And if GW can't show that they are the actual owners of the copyrighted work, then they can't sue for infringement of that work. Someone will still own the copyright, but if GW can't prove they own it, they could have problems in future cases.

I think in earlier discussion myself or someone else suggested that GW have lost the relevant paperwork or done the equivalent. The early days of GW in which they created some of their most fundamental properties was their age of strife, so to speak. Stuff was done in a haphazard manner and the concept of securing and cataloguing copyrights may not have been given a priority, it is today, but back then maybe not.

I don't know how you prove ownership of copyright, but I understand that some years ago GW was careless enough to lose the original design material and electronic copies of Man o' War, so goes the rumour. So maybe they do have a problem with producing their own records.

biccat wrote: If this were a serious assertion, they should have made a reference to where and how CH admitted copying.
(...) If they wanted CH to admit to copying, they could submit the proper discovery form (Request for Admission maybe?).
(...) In order to show you own a copyright you must have to show that there is an assignment from the creator to GW, or that there was some legal obligation to transfer the work, or that the work was work for hire. Presumably GW is going to have a tough time showing this. And if GW can't show that they are the actual owners of the copyrighted work, then they can't sue for infringement of that work. Someone will still own the copyright, but if GW can't prove they own it, they could have problems in future cases.

This only is correct if you assume that GW and its lawyers actually know what they are doing and have a basic knowledge of IP law and GW's copyrights. Sadly, their behavior in court seems to indicate, this is not the case. They haven't even provided the necessary references for filing this case, they still refuse to do so after 11 months, they use every trick in the business to avoid filing a correct case, making winning this case impossible. So it is reasonable to assume that the "CH admits to copying" is just another case of "lost grip on reality" by the plaintiff. Losing this case can force GW to accept, that reality doesn't bow to their omnipotency fantasies.

OR you can look at it from the point of view of a judge who's not an idiot as you seem to infer. You can also look at it from the point of view of several lawyers, who have gone to law schools which likely are not based in the Caribbean.

The judge very well might be setting a new standard for copyright infringement in this particular area(which hasn't really been explored) and basing it upon earlier precedence of obscenity laws(i.e. the "I know it when I see it" statement that a judge made in relation to pornography v. art)

Kanluwen wrote:OR you can look at it from the point of view of a judge who's not an idiot as you seem to infer. You can also look at it from the point of view of several lawyers, who have gone to law schools which likely are not based in the Caribbean.

The judge very well might be setting a new standard for copyright infringement in this particular area(which hasn't really been explored) and basing it upon earlier precedence of obscenity laws(i.e. the "I know it when I see it" statement that a judge made in relation to pornography v. art)

Praise be to the machine spirits of Wikipedia.

"To the general public, Stewart may be best known for a quotation, or a fragment thereof, from his opinion in the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964). Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but that "I know it when I see it."[11] Usually dropped from the quote is the remainder of that sentence, "and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Justice Stewart went on to defend the movie in question against further censorship. One noted commentator opined that: "This observation summarizes Stewart's judicial philosophy: particularistic, intuitive, and pragmatic."[11] Justice Stewart later recanted this view in Miller v. California, in which he accepted that his prior view was simply untenable."

Kanluwen wrote:OR you can look at it from the point of view of a judge who's not an idiot as you seem to infer. You can also look at it from the point of view of several lawyers, who have gone to law schools which likely are not based in the Caribbean.

The judge very well might be setting a new standard for copyright infringement in this particular area(which hasn't really been explored) and basing it upon earlier precedence of obscenity laws(i.e. the "I know it when I see it" statement that a judge made in relation to pornography v. art)

Actually, MANY judges have misinterpreted the law, hence decisions being remanded upon appeal. The standard may very well be set that a company cannot enforce a copyright on a work that it in fact does not have copyright to. Hopefully the judge is very intelligent and puts GW in it's place.

Mjoellnir wrote:

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?

I mean that if GW try and fail to prove that Chapter House's products are infringements of GW copyrights, it will be easier for CH and other companies to produce such models without interference from GW.

Let's be clear. Anyone can sell copies of things as long as the thing copied is not original and cannot be copyrighted. If GW claim that the Doom Seer is infringing copyright, and the court finds that it isn't, then it will become much easier for other companies to produce similar models.

Kroothawk wrote:This only is correct if you assume that GW and its lawyers actually know what they are doing and have a basic knowledge of IP law and GW's copyrights.

I'm going to assume GW's lawyers know what the hell they're doing. My concern is that GW corporate is trying to control the issue without knowing anything about the US law.

Kanluwen wrote:The judge very well might be setting a new standard for copyright infringement in this particular area(which hasn't really been explored)

I would assume he isn't, because the copyright standard is pretty well established (notwithstanding the previous discussion I had on this with Weeble about 2- and 3-D copyrights). To create a new standard would result in him being reversed on appeal. However, it's possible that GW is hoping that CH won't have the ability to appeal a bad decision.

However, the current stage of the litigation isn't this untried issue of copyright infringement. Currently it's about a discovery dispute and the proper form for a pleading. These are pretty well-worn areas of law, and the judge isn't likely to stray from existing law.

Kilkrazy wrote:I mean that if GW try and fail to prove that Chapter House's products are infringements of GW copyrights, it will be easier for CH and other companies to produce such models without interference from GW.

It's an uphill battle for CH to claim that the material isn't subject to copyright. I believe that there's a presumption of copyright validity (or at least that GW has done enough to support such a presumption), so the burden would shift to CH. It's a much easier (and a first hurdle that GW needs to meet) to challenge ownership of those copyrights.

biccat wrote:I'm going to assume GW's lawyers know what the hell they're doing. My concern is that GW corporate is trying to control the issue without knowing anything about the US law.

... or any IP law, given their claim on owning the copyright on Roman numners, arrows, the words human, dwarf and elf,...
But filing a case without providing the basic requirements for 11 months makes the GW's lawyers look like bloody amateurs (maybe that's why the first GW lawyer quit).

biccat wrote:It's an uphill battle for CH to claim that the material isn't subject to copyright.

AFAIK, GW first has to prove they own the copyright, before CHS has to prove they haven't infringed. And GW obviously is not willing to prove any copyright.

Kroothawk wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm going to assume GW's lawyers know what the hell they're doing. My concern is that GW corporate is trying to control the issue without knowing anything about the US law.

... or any IP law, given their claim on owning the copyright on Roman numners, arrows, the words human, dwarf and elf,...
But filing a case without providing the basic requirements for 11 months makes the GW's lawyers look like bloody amateurs (maybe that's why the first GW lawyer quit).

biccat wrote:It's an uphill battle for CH to claim that the material isn't subject to copyright.

AFAIK, GW first has to prove they own the copyright, before CHS has to prove they haven't infringed. And GW obviously is not willing to prove any copyright.

You can't copyright words, you can trademark words... but you can very much copyright a piece of art that has words or symbols in it. You can very much copyright a shoulderpad with roman numerals. The only way GW's copyrights have been violated is if someone recast thier stuff. GW can never lose their copyrights to thier own models. They can't lose copyrights to Rhino Door. I can draw a stick figure and claim copyright and if you duplicate it you have violated my copyright. Making similar Imagery on the doors is an IP discussion. Selling them as official GW models is a Trademark discussion.

Unless CH recast GW parts, then it is a Copyright question. Considering there were images of GW parts used for blanks for shoulderpads and doors, I think it is reasonable for GW to ask CH to prove they didn't recast by disclosing thier entire process. Especially if that process involves using 3d renders (again, shown on the internet) which are exact copies of full GW vehicles which then can fall into violating copyrights.

Here's an interesting question. Assuming that GW loses and then appeals, will CHS still have pro-bono representation, or does the pro-bono representation end when the original case is decided?

Could this be part of GW's strategy?

nkelsch wrote:
Considering there were images of GW parts used for blanks for shoulderpads and doors, I think it is reasonable for GW to ask CH to prove they didn't recast by disclosing thier entire process.

Except that isn't how the law works. You maybe "right" in every other possible way but the simple fact is, GW has made an accusation of copying with out showing what they believe CH has copied, and without that CH isn't legally obliged. This is to create a system that is fair under as many possible circumstances, because the flimsy standard you're applying might be used by a bigger company to strong arm a smaller company considered competition to reveal its trade secrets.

nkelsch wrote:
Especially if that process involves using 3d renders (again, shown on the internet) which are exact copies of full GW vehicles which then can fall into violating copyrights.

Not really... also CH hasn't made any full exact copies of any GW vehicle. Copyright protects a specific interpretation of a work, and not its basic geometry. The doors and shoulder pads etc. created by CH carry over their similarity to the degree of guaranteeing the interfacing of intended surfaces. Copyright doesn't protect that.

skyth wrote:Here's an interesting question. Assuming that GW loses and then appeals, will CHS still have pro-bono representation, or does the pro-bono representation end when the original case is decided?

Could this be part of GW's strategy?

To some extent, but GW wouldn't automatically win on appeal. CH has a right to be heard on appeal, even if they have to represent themselves. Even if CH can't represent themselves, or doesn't show up, I don't think you can get a default judgment in appellate court.

TBH, I don't know how it would be handled if there was no one available to represent CH on appeal. However, I think someone would be willing to step up and handle it for them, even if it were pro bono.

Any updates? If the past is any indicator (sherman anti trust act anyone?) more competition typically forces companies to adapt and to lower prices. Thus if GW were to lose, and companies could produce compatible (not the same, just parts that could be used...like attaching an ork arm to a possessed space marine) bitz, it would force them to find a way to lower prices without damaging their infrastructure...provided they have the business accumen to realize that reducing the number of stores isn't the answer, its lower the prices of your products.

Why in the world are you bringing the Sherman Antitrust Act into this?

The Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to prevent monopolies. Games Workshop is not a monopoly. If they were the only wargaming company out there or actively squashing/buying out the other companies producing wargames, then you might have a case that Games Workshop is a monopoly.

dbsamurai wrote:Any updates?

No. See here.

In fact, you can bookmark that page and when new stuff shows up you can find it. Presumably you can also set up an RSS feed or get updates on the twitter. Damn kids and your technology.

dbsamurai wrote:If the past is any indicator (sherman anti trust act anyone?) more competition typically forces companies to adapt and to lower prices.

No, competition leads to lower prices, it doesn't necessarily mean that the companies who are currently in business will remain in business. If GW can't make money off of their IP, then they don't have an incentive to develop their IP further, for example making new sculpts and developing new fluff.

GW is a company selling art, not a production company.

Kanluwen wrote:Games Workshop is not a monopoly.

Sure they are, that's the entire point of intellectual property laws.

That's not necessarily the same thing as a monopoly though.

Monopoly means that they're squashing all competition through unfair practices.

Kanluwen wrote:Monopoly means that they're squashing all competition through unfair practices.

You mean ... like ... with unfair C&D letters and lawsuits?

Kanluwen wrote:That's not necessarily the same thing as a monopoly though.

Monopoly means that they're squashing all competition through unfair practices.

This made me lol.