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.

My heart goes out to all those who had their Christmas so rudely interrupted.

Obviously, the charges to Paulson are complete crap, as are the charges against the walker. Chapterhouse is in for a bit of a fight due to the shotgun scatter of charges filed, but there is nothing illegal about making add-on parts.

Although there may be issues with trade dress.(i.e. your product could be mistaken for ours) Trade dress violations cannot be assessed damages and this is likely why GW did not file on these grounds. As they did not, they will need to prove the allegations of copyright infringement and or trademark infringement. It will come down to a ruling on their use of trademark use.

Trademarks are not only words, but also the font style and context in which they are used, so the claims of infringement are obviously arguable.

I for one, hope that all defendants file for a change of venue. Obviously GW chose this location to make it more difficult for the defendants.

Paulson should simply seek a dismissal based on mistaken identity of the walker, as he did not make the model. There are other charges I am sure I did not see because I do not have the full document the courts sent the defendants… These documents will show supporting evidence.

I wish all the best of luck and hope they can afford to mount a defense, rather than cave to unreasonable demands.

Luckily, GW's lawyers have no idea about the topic, no decent research and try to cover this with a "shock and awe" tactic.

Centering the lawsuit around a big model that is clearly designed and modelled by Zac Soden, not the accused Paulson Games, that is not even looking very Tau (who don't use super heavy walkers), is dumb. Adding the CarnifLex issue is dumb. Telling on their website that conversions of GW models are a crime is dumb. Telling that noone may sell things usable for GW products is dumb (otherwise Ford could sue Goodyear). GW lawyers are as competent as GW marketing: They live in a bubble and have no clue about this topic, only money and aggressiveness. (only thing in common is: while GW marketing tries to destoy the market for GW products, GW law department tries to destroy the market for non-GW products )

The hobby has been considerably enriched by third party products. Not few new armies were started by the release of fitting non-GW conversion bitz (Salamanders, Thousand Sons). And you need Space Marines to apply all those shoulder pads on. Conversions are an essential part of the hobby, and the closing of the GW bitz service did considerable harm, creating room for non-GW producers. Let's hope that GW doesn't succeed in destroying the hobby scene.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:Wait didn't GW like Pyriel so much they used his name along with Brother Argos from B+C in one of the Salamander's books? Or am I confusing him with another poster? If Im right it seems like a big disconnect

Well it's the Pyriel that did many of the shoulder pads and farseer kits and called a Russian sculptor a bloody GW copyist for doing a creative Alien monster not even close to GW's Tervigon concept art (but something better, see my Tyranid blog)

By the same concepts going into this lawsuit, one could argue that noone should manufacture aftermarket car parts without the automakers express permission. Yet, that happens daily.

It is my opinion that GW does not have a strong position in this case.

Heffling wrote:By the same concepts going into this lawsuit, one could argue that noone should manufacture aftermarket car parts without the automakers express permission. Yet, that happens daily.

It is my opinion that GW does not have a strong position in this case.

The comparisons to other, completely unrelated, industries and armchair lawyering are really what make this thread.

GW Lawyers didn't just throw something at a dartboard and have some monkeys type up a brief. Whether they are right or not is up to the courts, although I'm hoping someone tries to admit 'expert witnesses from the interwebs' on one side or the other, because that would be entertaining.

I do hope that KISS sue Games Workshop for copying the whole "studded shoulderpads" look... totally dilutes their trade dress.

Irdiumstern wrote:Well lets hope chapterhouse manages to continue it's impressive work.

Also, (no legal background here) can't chapterhouse do something with the blatant lies the GW brief states about advertising? I mean, who has ever seen an advertisement for GW, other than box art?

you buy white dwarf dont you? thats the most expensive advert booklet ive ever paid for.............................
good stuff mind you, works on me - hahahahahaha

Kanluwen wrote:You cannot make a profit on a fan site. When the owner sold his bloody site to Curse Gaming, Inc he did just that.
Several of the Blood Bowl/Specialist Games sites that were targeted by last year's lawsuits were also charging or requiring "donations" for you to be able to access what is, on the GW site, available for free.

...You DO realize that Yak & Lego bought Dakka from Russ, right? You DO realize that those ads at the top of the page are generating revenue, right?

What makes you think Dakka isn't profitable?

Kanluwen wrote:"Dakka Dakka" is not a copywritten phrase, nor can it really be. Yakface, Russ, etc can explain why they're in the clear about it far better than I ever could.

Actually, Dakka Dakka was a registered trademark for the old Dakka Dakka store (currently expired).

NoseGoblin wrote:Trademarks are not only words, but also the font style and context in which they are used, so the claims of infringement are obviously arguable.

Not always; you can trademark a word, without any accompanying font/image/etc. (The context/goods&services are important for most trademarks, in most situations.)

pretre wrote:

Heffling wrote:By the same concepts going into this lawsuit, one could argue that noone should manufacture aftermarket car parts without the automakers express permission. Yet, that happens daily.

It is my opinion that GW does not have a strong position in this case.

The comparisons to other, completely unrelated, industries and armchair lawyering are really what make this thread.

It's actually not a bad comparison, and there's some existing law on the topic. Believe it or not, this is the sort of analogy that law-talking-folks rely on, when courts haven't already specifically addressed the topic at issue.

I think it's time for a change of topic.

Does anyone know where I can find some good space corridors? I've also been trying to find good models for industrial towers...

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You cannot make a profit on a fan site. When the owner sold his bloody site to Curse Gaming, Inc he did just that.
Several of the Blood Bowl/Specialist Games sites that were targeted by last year's lawsuits were also charging or requiring "donations" for you to be able to access what is, on the GW site, available for free.

...You DO realize that Yak & Lego bought Dakka from Russ, right? You DO realize that those ads at the top of the page are generating revenue, right?

What makes you think Dakka isn't profitable?

Yes, I realize "those ads at the top of the page are generating revenue" and that Yak & Lego bought Dakka from Russ.
But again:
It was not the same thing as the Curse Gaming, Inc situation. Curse Gaming, Inc is a corporate entity which bought the site from the original owner.
The owner who originally owned the site, by all accounts, didn't receive the costs to "cover" the server setup, etc.
He was paid a very hefty sum for the site(if I'm remembering the situation correctly), and Curse didn't change the ownership information from it looking like a bare minimum, fan site.

Kanluwen wrote:"Dakka Dakka" is not a copywritten phrase, nor can it really be. Yakface, Russ, etc can explain why they're in the clear about it far better than I ever could.

Actually, Dakka Dakka was a registered trademark for the old Dakka Dakka store (currently expired).

I said I couldn't explain it! I just remembered that Yak had explained it at some point, and I didn't save the explanation.

HungryTaz wrote:

Take "Wierd Al" as an example.

Big difference here is that Weird Al asks for permission from an artist before he makes money from a parody. This would be akin to Chapter House licensing their products.

Perhaps GW needs to start a 'licensing' model for third party producers to use. That would solve a lot of these problems.

Please do not use Weird Al as an example. His songs are covered under a very specific section of law covering parody. The fact that he asks for artist permission is irrelevant, as parody does not require any permission whatsoever. as shown by Falwell v Hustler Magazine.

Long story short, it's a completely different precedent covering a completely different issue and not related in any way whatsoever to the matter at hand.

Kanluwen wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You cannot make a profit on a fan site. When the owner sold his bloody site to Curse Gaming, Inc he did just that.
Several of the Blood Bowl/Specialist Games sites that were targeted by last year's lawsuits were also charging or requiring "donations" for you to be able to access what is, on the GW site, available for free.

...You DO realize that Yak & Lego bought Dakka from Russ, right? You DO realize that those ads at the top of the page are generating revenue, right?

What makes you think Dakka isn't profitable?

Yes, I realize "those ads at the top of the page are generating revenue" and that Yak & Lego bought Dakka from Russ.
But again:
It was not the same thing as the Curse Gaming, Inc situation. Curse Gaming, Inc is a corporate entity which bought the site from the original owner.
The owner who originally owned the site, by all accounts, didn't receive the costs to "cover" the server setup, etc.
He was paid a very hefty sum for the site(if I'm remembering the situation correctly), and Curse didn't change the ownership information from it looking like a bare minimum, fan site.

I don't see any (legal) distinction there. Whether an entity like Yakface, or a corporate entity like Curse buys something makes no difference.

I can understand why you might feel there is some (moral?) difference between the situations, but if you're looking for a legal difference, the nature of the buyer probably ain't it.

I was under the impression there was.

But I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just going off what I've been given the impression of courtesy of a few law classes.

I may not be a lawyer but GW does have a right to defend their copyrights, they just need to be a little more reasonable about the fact that people are going to try and copy the products in some way or form.

Besides, how can you sue a company that is only selling innocent space bugs and space elves?!

Chapterhouse wrote:I think a good question is if you can copyright a format of statistics for a game, IE BS WS I A S T
etc. That seems a shaky leg to stand on.

You can not, at least in the U.S.. So you are correct there.

Kanluwen wrote:

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:I'm really disappointed with GW and their decision to sue ChapterHouse. If it wasn't for companies like ChapterHouse there wouldn't be as many unique designs for custom army. Another important matter is that GW don't have a leg to stay on. Many of their pieces that ChapterHouse makes, GW haven't attempt to make in the first place.

What's your point? That doesn't mean that they're free-game for anyone in the world to stake claim to(which isn't what Chapterhouse did, but still. Just because it hasn't been made--doesn't mean it won't be).

As a player, we all know that GW sucks in making everything in a Codex and has to depend on the efforts of the customers and companies like ChapterHouse.

Uh, no they don't. They have Forge World for when they slack or if it's something they have no intention of ever making(and even that is going away, as they intend for every Codex entry to have a model--even if it won't be right at launch. Forge World is pretty much becoming obsolete for "filling" gaps, and is instead making their own stuff).

There have been cases where GW has taken custom models from players....Stormraven and Exorcist.

No, there hasn't. In fact, that's partially why everyone here was whining so much about the Stormraven. It looked nothing like the conversions people were doing.

here my point to you Kanluwen: if that the case then Ford could sue Firestone or any tire company out there that makes tire for their vehicle. Companies like Ford,Chevy and Dodge, need to third party companies to make the item that they wish not to make. this is the same case with GW and Forgeworld, they both need third parties companies to make parts to fill in the gaps. by the Kanluwen GW does steal ideas and custom models from the players that supports their company.

I'm glad to see that this has quickly descended into people that dont' know anything about IP law talking, while ignroing the one poster that does; while the rest of us watch a poster that relentlessly argues on behalf of GW try to explain why he's not an apologist.

Change the names and the dates, and this is basically a re-run.

The only difference in legal rights between a natural person and a corporation, at least in terms of IP, is that a natural person can represent himself. Corporations (or any incorporated entity) have to hire a lawyer.

Polonius wrote:I'm glad to see that this has quickly descended into people that dont' know anything about IP law talking, while ignroing the one poster that does; while the rest of us watch a poster that relentlessly argues on behalf of GW try to explain why he's not an apologist.

Change the names and the dates, and this is basically a re-run.

The only difference in legal rights between a natural person and a corporation, at least in terms of IP, is that a natural person can represent himself. Corporations (or any incorporated entity) have to hire a lawyer.

I personally like the references to the automotive industry, like the situations are even remotely related.

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:
here my point to you Kanluwen: if that the case then Ford could sue Firestone or any tire company out there that makes tire for their vehicle.

And then you'd have Fords with no tires. This isn't completely the same situation, because of the fact that none of the parts Chapterhouse produces are necessary for your models to "work".

Companies like Ford,Chevy and Dodge, need to third party companies to make the item that they wish not to make. this is the same case with GW and Forgeworld, they both need third parties companies to make parts to fill in the gaps.

No, actually...they don't.
Forge World, originally, was to "fill in the gaps". Forge World is no longer doing that, by GW's own orders(from all accounts). Games Workshop's stated goal is the same as Privateer Press'. They're going to produce every model in the army book, it just will not be done immediately.

by the way, Kanluwen GW does steal ideas and custom models from the players that supports their company.

Find me one example, where a player actually published the idea, publicly, or a "custom model" and it was stolen. The Nurgle Daemon Prince that was already mentioned does not apply, since the sculptor was paid for it.
Nor does an example count if it's something that was described by GW, someone did a conversion based off of that description, and then GW later released a kit going off their own description.

Actually, as Janthkin pointed out, arguing by analogy is what lawyers do when there isn't caselaw on point.

The market is full of third party accessories. Ipod cases, off brand car parts, gun sights, etc. I think that the argument that CH is making after-market add-ons, accessories, and replacment components, they can argue by analogy that what they do is ok.

Polonius wrote:I'm glad to see that this has quickly descended into people that dont' know anything about IP law talking, while ignroing the one poster that does; while the rest of us watch a poster that relentlessly argues on behalf of GW try to explain why he's not an apologist. .

Agreed. I think this thread is headed down a one way street for a lock... espically since the mods have stepped in twice now and people are STILL ignoring the warnings.

Polonius wrote:Actually, as Janthkin pointed out, arguing by analogy is what lawyers do when there isn't caselaw on point.

The point is that Ford does not have a patent etc on tires, so other people can manufacture them.

GW does have a patent on their Designes, you cant call something a Tervigon or a Landraider and sell it. Those are pattented names, by all means sell a "large monsterous creature" or a "WW1 style tank" as long as you arnt ripping off the design. Also slapping a load of Tau iconography all over a model will get you in trouble if you are selling it on a large scale.

Is GW going after people who make conversion kits?

Polonius wrote:I'm glad to see that this has quickly descended into people that don't know anything about IP law talking,

Well, no matter what it would have descended into "people that don't know anything about IP law talking". There's no requirement that we have a degree in IP law to comment on this subject.

while ignoring the one poster that does; while the rest of us watch a poster that relentlessly argues on behalf of GW try to explain why he's not an apologist.

I didn't ignore Janthkin. In fact, he did teach me something I was previously unaware of in regards to the whole Curse Gaming thing.

As for the second part...Pft. There goes that word again...
Agreeing with the reasoning behind something makes an apologist?

The only difference in legal rights between a natural person and a corporation, at least in terms of IP, is that a natural person can represent himself. Corporations (or any incorporated entity) have to hire a lawyer.

So basically what you're saying, no matter how this situation would have worked out...
To even talk to Chapterhouse, GW would have needed a lawyer anyways, yes?

I shall watch this case with interest.

It seems the problem isn't the convenient compatability of the Chapterhouse Kits, but their unauthorised use of copyrighted names and terms that's got them in shtook.

And I have to say, if GW's Legal Team can prove any part of one of their models has been sculpted on top of, then reproduced, Chapterhouse are well and truly frakked. Of course, if for example they simply made their own shoulderpad (example is just an example, not a specific, or even an accusation) they might be okay. But yeah, using GW names and in some places iconography seems distinctly ropey in terms of legality.

But hey, I'm just a spod. I don't know the law!

MagickalMemories wrote:Mostly, I'm referring to Squats & Chaos Dwarves.
Everywhere you go, if you talk to people who have been familiar with the games since those armies were part of it, a majority of them liked and/or miss those armies.

That's just nostalgia talking. It's survival of the fittest, and Squats failed. They were the dodo of 40k armies, charming in its ugliness but ultimately non-viable. I'm a squat collector and aficionado, but I lack your childish illusions. I collect them because they were a failure, an idiotic failed experiment by Games Workshop in its infancy.

Wolfstan wrote:What about if they changed the wording to something like "suitable / compatible for conversions with GW models". I mean how many small businesses out there produce accessories for mobile devices and mention the product name in their description?

Eg:

"Suitable for use with iPad"

It isn't an official Apple product, but the advertising would say that you can use it with an iPad. If you didn't use the name "iPad" how would you describe it? You're using the word "iPad" as a point of reference. So why can't CH change their wording to reflect such a situation?

Oh forgot, what about Verlinden products? They are made to fit Tamiya kits and advertised as such.

Maxmini and others simply state that their stuff is 'suitable for use with 28mm heroic-scale miniatures' or something like that.

Polonius wrote:Actually, as Janthkin pointed out, arguing by analogy is what lawyers do when there isn't caselaw on point.

Yeah, but in this situation there isn't really a good analogy to use, is there? I don't need Chapterhouse's products to finish my models. I do need Firestone or any other tire manufacturer's product to ensure that my car works properly.

The market is full of third party accessories. Ipod cases, off brand car parts, gun sights, etc. I think that the argument that CH is making after-market add-ons, accessories, and replacement components, they can argue by analogy that what they do is ok.

Excepting the off brand car parts, that makes more sense. I just don't understand the constant comparison to tire manufacturers.

Kanluwen wrote:

Polonius wrote:
The only difference in legal rights between a natural person and a corporation, at least in terms of IP, is that a natural person can represent himself. Corporations (or any incorporated entity) have to hire a lawyer.

So basically what you're saying, no matter how this situation would have worked out...
To even talk to Chapterhouse, GW would have needed a lawyer anyways, yes?

No. To represent oneself in court.

Mannahnin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Polonius wrote:
The only difference in legal rights between a natural person and a corporation, at least in terms of IP, is that a natural person can represent himself. Corporations (or any incorporated entity) have to hire a lawyer.

So basically what you're saying, no matter how this situation would have worked out...
To even talk to Chapterhouse, GW would have needed a lawyer anyways, yes?

No. To represent oneself in court.

I was wondering... do you need to be a lawyer to send a "cease and desist" letter?

Well, I'm a lawyer, and they're not. My analogies are going to be better after years of training.

the fact that you don't need chapterhouses kits shows that they're aftermarket accessories, which is a pretty rich field. They may get tagged for improper use of GW trademarks while marketing them, but my argument would be that GW can't show any actual damages.

GW wouldn't need to hire a lawyer to talk to them, but non-natural persons cannot appear in court un-represented, at least in Ohio, even if solely owned. Since GW is publicly traded, they absolutely could not appear on their own behalf.

Interestingly enough, apologists are generally people that use reason to defend a point of view in an argument, usually one that is heavily criticized or not often taken. It's a pretty accurate descriptor of a person that holds a minority view point but energetically defends it in the face of criticism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gibbsey wrote:I was wondering... do you need to be a lawyer to send a "cease and desist" letter?

Nope. It's not a legal action. All a C&D does it let somebody know that you want them to stop, and litigation is implied.

Polonius wrote:Interestingly enough, apologists are generally people that use reason to defend a point of view in an argument, usually one that is heavily criticized or not often taken. It's a pretty accurate descriptor of a person that holds a minority view point but energetically defends it in the face of criticism.

Have you seen him consistently take sides in other threads, because in this thread he has a valid point and that is Chapter house has breached GW IP.

arguing against IP infringement does not make you an apologist