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.

AndrewC wrote:....................

I think what Sid is getting at, and using your analogy, is that GW has always implied/stated that it will hit a straight 6 if ever it has to go to court.

I would, however, disagree with you on the 'might have', it will have a significant impact on the hobby. If GW lose then the other 3rd party companies will become more agressive in their marketing, website forums may begin to spring up again, eg the Bloodbowl fiasco. If GWs wins, for example the Space Marine colour chart become legally recognised, then painting companies are screwed; Customer "I want a dozen Ultramrines?" Painter "Sorry Blue marines with Omega signs are GW IP, I can't paint them that colour"

I don't think that CHS has done anything 'more' wrong than any other company, they used/tried to use GW Copyright under 'fair use' "These parts fit GW Space Marines" and were more obvious than others. As such were the company with its' head farthest over the parapet. To GW they were the easiest company to sue.
..........................

I am not aware of GW making a statement or even referring to this case, so can you point me to where GW have suggested it was going to be an easy win? As I say I just can't see (being a corporate lapdog myself ) anyone taking action with such huge implied results so lightly.

I agree that CHS hasn't done that much wrong, but when faced with GW pointing out a few changes so that they might cohabit the same arena, CHS figuratively stuck two fingers up to the man. Then acquiesced to the same request once they had lawyers, with the potential added bonus that they could create a legal position where they have made their own business (and others - Blue marine painters ltd) untenable.

I'm not sure about any others that had been using GWs images/models/names as blatantly as CHS did, so I agree the obvious target was obvious.

notprop wrote:I don't think I was.

GW asked CHS to change aspects of their site.

CHS didn't and sought legal representation, got it and then changed their site.

A C&D is just a Notice that says here is the situation, [please] could you remedy this by X. Of course its not enforcable, it is advisory in its nature.

The point I was trying to make (however moot at this point in time) was; why not cut out the legal bit and change the site in the first place rather than getting a bee in your bonnet? Seems like allot less hassle to work with GW, a company that CHS states it likes than to go down this route.

I don't think either GW or CHS ever announced or published what conversations (if any) occurred prior to filing the lawsuit.

notprop wrote:
GW asked CHS to change aspects of their site.

CHS didn't and sought legal representation, got it and then changed their site.

A C&D is just a Notice that says here is the situation, [please] could you remedy this by X. Of course its not enforcable, it is advisory in its nature.

The point I was trying to make (however moot at this point in time) was; why not cut out the legal bit and change the site in the first place rather than getting a bee in your bonnet? Seems like allot less hassle to work with GW, a company that CHS states it likes than to go down this route.

One potential upshot of this in the event that GW wins, is that rather than having independent companies making various bits with tacit approval from GW (the sort of Gentlemans agreement that has seen many companies making GW related components), this may create the opposite situation where GW now has the enforcable position to stop this sort of activity for the whole 3rd party market.

It would be unfortunate if this transpired, however unlikely. I only say this as I just don't see GW as the feckless nincompoops that some would suggest that they are. They are a PLC, I do not imagine that they flitter money away on trivial legal matters without a sound basis. [Of course they might be, which is what makes this all so compelling!]

Why should CHS change their business model just because someone asks them to?
If I send CHS a C+D saying, "I invented the word chapterhouse, please change your name", should they change just to avoid legal hassles, even if I have no right to make them change it?
A C+D is a legal warning and thus should be backed by reasonable ability to enforce it. CHS believed, with good reason and based on legal counsel, that they were acting in the right. They only changed the names *after* the suit began, to essentially negate any of the trademark infringement claims by GW. Essentially as I said before, they stood up to GW's bullying and now with pro-bono counsel they can actually get in the fight.

I also don't see how GW controlling enforcing what other companies are allowed to make is an 'upshot'. Less choice is bad for us. If this gets to trial at all, any outcome is probably going to be a bad thing for us as gamers. What we want is for an out of court settlement where CHS agrees not to make full models of units in GW's rules, and GW leaves them otherwise alone.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:
I am not aware of GW making a statement or even referring to this case, so can you point me to where GW have suggested it was going to be an easy win? As I say I just can't see (being a corporate lapdog myself ) anyone taking action with such huge implied results so lightly.

I agree that CHS hasn't done that much wrong, but when faced with GW pointing out a few changes so that they might cohabit the same arena, CHS figuratively stuck two fingers up to the man. Then acquiesced to the same request once they had lawyers, with the potential added bonus that they could create a legal position where they have made their own business (and others - Blue marine painters ltd) untenable.

Not a GW statement as such, more their general "GW owns copyright/trademarks on 'Warhammer 40k', 'Nurgle', 'Khorne', 'Slaanesh', 'Eldar', 'Elf', 'Dwarf', 'Magic', 'Space Marine', 'Wolf', 'Blood', 'grimdark', 'skulls', 'The Chaos Star that some other guy invented', 'arrows', 'roman numerals', 'ancient greek mythological creatures'....." many of which cannot be enforced, no matter how many times GW asserts that they can.
For example, GW has accused CHS of infringing their copyright by using the Chaos Star on shoulderpads. The Chaos Star was invented by Michael Moorcock (a fiction writer) and was arrogated by GW. CHS (i believe) has written permission from Michael Moorcock that they are allowed to use that symbol. I'm pretty sure that roman numerals and greek mythological creatures are public domain by now as well...

Janthkin wrote:

Chimaera wrote:Correct me if I have this wrong but GW are happy to tolerate 3rd parties jumping on the badwagon so long as they make no direct reference to the IP in the game. Why is it CHS feel this is an unacceptable approach.

And where do you get this from? GW has certainly never announced such a policy, and has in the past sent out Cease & Desist letters to companies making figures that aren't labeled with any 40k/Fantasy-related name.

Actually, I'd say GW has no problem with 3rd parties jumping on their wagon: look at Avatars of War. Not only do they continue making OBVIOUS GW-based models, one of the GW sculptors used an AoW warrior priest for his War Altar conversion. No, I'm not gonna spend a long time looking up a link that was on their homepage over a year ago, but there was a fairly big deal made about it then. I'm all for it, I use AoW characters in my armies, but AoW doesn't call anything by it's GW name, so the appearance is the same, but the name is different.

And, somebody mentioned a while ago in this post that if GW stopped releasing rules without models that we'd have fewer models in armies, but really-how would you even know the difference? You'd see every model in the codex released at the start date, BUT then you'd see things pop up in WD once in a while, like the rumored new Tyranid models or the Terrorgheist/Wraiths for VC. This would actually be tactically brilliant for them-not only would they have models for all their starting units, but people would start buying WD again because there would be actual game material in them, not just advertisements.

I have no problem with 3rd parties creating sculpts for GWs models to fill a niche that GW hasn't yet. HOWEVER: if they are trying to claim the IP that GW has created as their own, just saying "we made it first, even though they provided a picture and we used the base of one of their models and copied their stuff"....well, I have no support for that. To sum up...filling empty niche=good. Stealing IP (or trying to)=bad.

notprop wrote:I am not aware of GW making a statement or even referring to this case, so can you point me to where GW have suggested it was going to be an easy win?

It's never been stated in reference to this case, and I never said it was an easy win, but that they implied/stated they would win, should they ever have to go to court. I've drawn that info from past statements and actions of GW.

Not one of their C&D letters have ever been challenged to this extent before, once that letter has hit, then people have either folded or quit. GW has started to believe their own claims about how high/wide that moat/wall is. For instance I can remember it being in a rule book in which GW states that assembling their models in any other manner than that described was an infringement of their IP, so converting your models was a legal offence.

I do agree with Sid that GW have not exactly lived up to their claims of superiority if after 10 months they can't point to X products and say how it infringes, and against which of their own product it copies.

Cheers

Andrew

notprop wrote:

I don't think I was.

GW asked CHS to change aspects of their site.

CHS didn't and sought legal representation, got it and then changed their site.

A C&D is just a Notice that says here is the situation, [please] could you remedy this by X. Of course its not enforcable, it is advisory in its nature.

their "notcie" didnt say change some aspect. It said shut down production. Quite a difference there, you dont even have the basic aspects of the suit right. How can you be certain about anything else?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

timetowaste85 wrote:

Actually, I'd say GW has no problem with 3rd parties jumping on their wagon: look at Avatars of War. Not only do they continue making OBVIOUS GW-based models, one of the GW sculptors used an AoW warrior priest for his War Altar conversion. No, I'm not gonna spend a long time looking up a link that was on their homepage over a year ago, but there was a fairly big deal made about it then. I'm all for it, I use AoW characters in my armies, but AoW doesn't call anything by it's GW name, so the appearance is the same, but the name is different.

For every avatar's of war they ignore, your forgetting the C&D letter they sent to ultraforge for the demon prince in SF that was too close and had to be resculpted, and the one that they sent to another company having to remove one of their beasts(forget who they are).

So yes, GW has had issues with bandwagons, when they choose to- blood bowl fiasco was another one.

timetowaste85 wrote:
Actually, I'd say GW has no problem with 3rd parties jumping on their wagon: look at Avatars of War. Not only do they continue making OBVIOUS GW-based models, one of the GW sculptors used an AoW warrior priest for his War Altar conversion. No, I'm not gonna spend a long time looking up a link that was on their homepage over a year ago, but there was a fairly big deal made about it then. I'm all for it, I use AoW characters in my armies, but AoW doesn't call anything by it's GW name, so the appearance is the same, but the name is different.

A possible issue regarding Avatars of War: It was started and is run by a former GW employee. I wouldn't put it past GW that they're not ignoring AoW, but that they're actively choosing not to take action against him, especially since Chapterhouse has the same "appearance is the same, but the name is different" going for it.

Platuan4th wrote: Chapterhouse has the same "appearance is the same, but the name is different" going for it.

Tervigon Kit to upgrade Carnifex
Yes, shockingly different.

I can't imagine how anyone would see the connection to GW models.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Platuan4th wrote: Chapterhouse has the same "appearance is the same, but the name is different" going for it.

Tervigon Kit to upgrade Carnifex
Yes, shockingly different.

I can't imagine how anyone would see the connection to GW models.

Me either.

I mean, the race names are even spelled different.

They're doing the exact same thing(other than CH also produces conversion kits) with regards to GW's IP, yet somehow one is sued and vilified in the community and one is slipped past and hailed as the epitome of an army's vision of what their Heroes and Lords should look like in that same community. Hell, the Avatars may as well say "Not Chaos Lord" and "Not Vampire Count", the names they're given are all but the name of GW's unit entries.

notprop wrote:

A C&D is just a Notice that says here is the situation, [please] could you remedy this by X. Of course its not enforcable, it is advisory in its nature.

A C&D says This is what you are doing wrong, stop doing it or I will sue you. If I remember correctly, a party is not supposed to even send a C&D without the intention to file a lawsuit. Once a C&D is out there, failing to comply will ultimately result in a suit being filed, unless the party sending the C&D wants to open themselves up to litigation. In the US at least, it isn't considered fair business practice to influence a competitor's behavior by making hollow or unsupportable treats. A C&D is not a friendly warning, it is a threat of legal action.

Funny stuff. Without knowing anything of the AoW company history. The first time that I saw an Avatar of War miniature or went to the AoW website to window shop I never EVER made a connection to GW. Their miniatures are just so damn good they leave most things put out by GW in their wake.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Platuan4th wrote: Chapterhouse has the same "appearance is the same, but the name is different" going for it.

Tervigon Kit to upgrade Carnifex
Yes, shockingly different.

I can't imagine how anyone would see the connection to GW models.

That is not a model, its just parts that fill onto other existing models hence the name conversion kit. Or are you claiming that GW should also file a lawsuit against Pig Iron because everyone is using their heads and putting them on IG bodies?

MightyGodzilla wrote:Funny stuff. Without knowing anything of the AoW company history. The first time that I saw an Avatar of War miniature or went to the AoW website to window shop I never EVER made a connection to GW. Their miniatures are just so damn good they leave most things put out by GW in their wake.

Back when they first started, the AoW site(or the precursor to the current site which sold the first 2-3 models before they developed the Arena game they do these days) was Felix's "personal site", more or less, where in addition to the AoW figs, he also showed off models he did for GW and Privateer Press(the early Trolls for when Hordes just came out), as well as info about him(in which the fact that he worked for GW was very prominent).

Also note, the Shop at the AoW site, isn't titled "Heroes for the Arena" but "Heroes for your Armies", clearly showing that it's more intended for you to purchase them for other game systems than for the skirmish game they themselves produce.

olympia wrote:Typically the cease-and-desist bully tactic works only if the people lack representation.

Which is all kinds of fethed up and shouldn't be how it works at all, but that's a topic for another thread I guess.

America, the land where if you have enough money you can get away with murder...and in some cases literally.

notprop wrote:With you most of the way there Sid, right up until GW embarrasing themselves in court?

It might be too soon to call them a "failure", seeing as how the case isn't even over yet, but I was talking more about the fact that the case is this far in and GW has failed to produce hardly any of the information asked of it. They can't actually prove that anything is being infringed or that they even legally own the IP they're claiming is being infringed on, and it seems as if GW seriously expected the judge to just take their word for it and side with them immediately, ordering Chapterhouse to give them all their money and close up shop, just because they had the bigger wallet. They clearly weren't expecting to actually prove their work was being ripped off wholesale because they haven't managed to pony it up yet, nearly a year after the fact. Considering that GW talked a big game when they were handing out C&D's left and right, you'd think they would have had their house in better order and that they'd be able to end a case like this fairly quickly. Turns out, judging from what's been reported in this thread, they're just as sloppy and disorganized in the court room as they are when it comes to writing rules and they're making themselves look pretty bad.

I have no love for big companies who act the bully and expect to get their way via their bank account (i.e., all of them). I'm glad Chapterhouse was able to get a reputable law firm to stand behind them pro bono, because GW is no exception and I'm happy to see one of said companies finally get what's coming to them. Don't bark like a big dog if you don't have the bite to back it up.

Chimaera wrote:Any judge in the USA with half a brain could identify CHS are ripping the IP from GW.

Which is exactly why this case has dragged on for nearly a year and the court didn't immediately side with GW against CH. Wait, what?

Platuan4th wrote:They're doing the exact same thing(other than CH also produces conversion kits) with regards to GW's IP, yet somehow one is sued and vilified in the community and one is slipped past and hailed as the epitome of an army's vision of what their Heroes and Lords should look like in that same community. Hell, the Avatars may as well say "Not Chaos Lord" and "Not Vampire Count", the names they're given are all but the name of GW's unit entries.

There's another company, Raging Heroes. They produced a Lammasu.

GW send a C&D at them because they produced a model based on mythology. The Lammasu is equivalent to a Dragon or a Hydra in how 'public domain' the concept is, but here we have GW sending a C&D.

The reason? GW, behind closed doors, was planning re-releasing their own Piece of Gak. Raging Heroes gave in and the customers are at a loss because of it.

GW is not consistent with their C&Ds. For every Avatars of War case, there's a Raging Heroes case. GW destroyed their reputation with their frivolous strong-arming.

--

As a (almost exclusively) Tyranid and Eldar player, I loved all the Chapterhouse releases because they actually paid attention to me where GW didn't GW was too busy pumping out more Space Marines. If GW wants to take their Tyranids and Eldar releases 'hostage' and blame it on Chapterhouse, that's just garbage; I see no fault in Chapterhouse whatsoever. Ultimately, GW's holdbacks mean I won't be buying any Eldar/Tyranid models from them and buying them from Chapterhouse instead. GW's price rises mean I won't be starting any new armies. Their loss. I still have Infinity to look forward to.

AndrewC wrote:

I do agree with Sid that GW have not exactly lived up to their claims of superiority if after 10 months they can't point to X products and say how it infringes, and against which of their own product it copies.

And until they do that, along with proving they own the copyright to their own items, they have no case whatsoever. I would imagine that if they do not start producing this information fairly soon, the judge is going to toss the case out with prejudice, allowing CH to recoup their legal fees. CH could then sue for damages caused by the (now) frivolous lawsuit. GW appears to have become "stuck in" to a CH tar baby.

From Wikipedia:
The Tar-Baby is a doll made of tar and turpentine used to entrap Br'er Rabbit in the second of the Uncle Remus stories. The more that Br'er Rabbit fights the Tar-Baby, the more entangled he becomes. In modern usage according to Random House, "tar baby" refers to any "sticky situation" that is only aggravated by additional contact.

Phototoxin wrote:Any ideas on an expected end date for this lawsuit? I thought there is a right to a speedy trial in the US?

Given that CH has pro bono representation, it will probably go on until GW gives up or the trial is completed. It could be years. Deposition is going to be huge if GW wants to challenge all 97 pieces mentioned. They will have to prove that they own copyright for each item (provide paper trail) and that each protected feature of the item was sculpted without using other copyrighted material or public domain material. This will require a deposition (and possible cross examination?) from the sculptor of each piece.

IANAL, so lawyers please correct as necessary.

The Avatars of War stuff is basically generic fantasy, influenced by the same Moorcock-style concepts that influenced GW. There's no real way GW would have a case against them on the basis of those 3 figures -- it's not like GW invented daemons (or indeed that spelling) or chaos. Maybe the marauder, but even that's very shaky (and could be dealt with by AoW changing the name to "barbarian").

Ian Sturrock wrote:The Avatars of War stuff is basically generic fantasy, influenced by the same Moorcock-style concepts that influenced GW. There's no real way GW would have a case against them on the basis of those 3 figures -- it's not like GW invented daemons (or indeed that spelling) or chaos. Maybe the marauder, but even that's very shaky (and could be dealt with by AoW changing the name to "barbarian").

So Moorcock invented Asian theme Ogres with gutplates(AoW Ogre Hero)? Or the same aesthetics of the Orc body as GW(any of AoW's Orcs)? Or the same styling of armor that GW uses for Dark Elves(AoW Dark Elf Prince)? I wasn't aware that generic "Warrior Priests" used hammers and bore Templar crosses(AoW War Priest), either.

If you actually go to their site, their aesthetic is very clearly developed to fit within the world GW developed for Warhammer Fantasy.

We're saying they might have issues because of the word "marauder"? Seriously? Why would they need to change the name, marauder basically is just another word for barbarian...you can't do that, you can't come up with a generic name for a fictional unit of soldiers, like calling them literally "barbarians", and then sue the gak out of everyone who also makes barbarians because you decided you wanted to start making them, too.

Sidstyler wrote:We're saying they might have issues because of the word "marauder"? Seriously? Why would they need to change the name, marauder basically is just another word for barbarian...you can't do that, you can't come up with a generic name for a fictional unit of soldiers, like calling them literally "barbarians", and then sue the gak out of everyone who also makes barbarians because you decided you wanted to start making them, too.

Have you READ the Copyrights GW claims? They list a copyright for Marauder in the Chaos Army Books as it pertains to a combined relationship to their copyright Chaos. AoW's "Marauders" are listed as part of their Chaos Avatars. They have as much tenuous legal claim vs AoW as they do with CH. To use an example from past CH threads: If you placed a AoW model next to a GW model, the average lay person would tell you they were made by the same company.

The whole point I'm making is that GW is cherry picking who they go after with regards to "violating IP".

Or, as Absolutionis stated, they're not consistent with their C&Ds.

lol, right, I immediately forgot that GW was probably stupid enough to claim it owned the word "marauder".

How the feth can you copyright "chaos" for that matter, Jesus Christ...at this rate I seriously hope Chapterhouse wins and sues them right back just for being so stupid, I don't even care what it means for "the Hobby" after that. No company should be allowed to open up a fething dictionary and go "Okay, we own this, we own this, we own this...this one, too...um let's see..."

The Avatars of War stuff is basically generic fantasy,

Except that, AFAIK, the concept of slayer dwarves with punky orange mohicans is a GW thing.
Not an expert by any means on dwarves in literature and art, but have only come across such a depiction in WHFB
(would be interested to know of an earlier precendent)

But AoW slayers as good as they are, are apparently immune to the GW C&D filer.
Lammasu as mentioned is an ancient mythological beastie and Raging Heroes do get the treatment, and a sad loss to thye gaming community imho.

All very huggermugger

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

The Avatars of War stuff is basically generic fantasy,

Except that, AFAIK, the concept of slayer dwarves with punky orange mohicans is a GW thing.

So you can copyright a hairstyle, basically? Or are you saying you can copyright the hairstyle in combination with them being shirtless? Because I think dwarves aren't a unique GW concept and that's really all they came up with on their own.

Absolutionis wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:They're doing the exact same thing(other than CH also produces conversion kits) with regards to GW's IP, yet somehow one is sued and vilified in the community and one is slipped past and hailed as the epitome of an army's vision of what their Heroes and Lords should look like in that same community. Hell, the Avatars may as well say "Not Chaos Lord" and "Not Vampire Count", the names they're given are all but the name of GW's unit entries.

There's another company, Raging Heroes. They produced a Lammasu.

GW send a C&D at them because they produced a model based on mythology. The Lammasu is equivalent to a Dragon or a Hydra in how 'public domain' the concept is, but here we have GW sending a C&D.

The reason? GW, behind closed doors, was planning re-releasing their own Piece of Gak. Raging Heroes gave in and the customers are at a loss because of it.

GW is not consistent with their C&Ds. For every Avatars of War case, there's a Raging Heroes case. GW destroyed their reputation with their frivolous strong-arming.

But if you were to look at the two side by side, the faces looked VERY similar. If I'm not mistaken, the last thread related to this model said they were going to be releasing the model again with a different face as that would satisfy GW's claim. I'm sorry but Raging Hero's model did look like GW's when you took into account the face. When you changed the face, it was a completely different model. We can all argue until we're blue in the face but Raging Heros did back down and change the model up a bit.

Absolutionis wrote:
As a (almost exclusively) Tyranid and Eldar player, I loved all the Chapterhouse releases because they actually paid attention to me where GW didn't GW was too busy pumping out more Space Marines. If GW wants to take their Tyranids and Eldar releases 'hostage' and blame it on Chapterhouse, that's just garbage; I see no fault in Chapterhouse whatsoever. Ultimately, GW's holdbacks mean I won't be buying any Eldar/Tyranid models from them and buying them from Chapterhouse instead. GW's price rises mean I won't be starting any new armies. Their loss. I still have Infinity to look forward to.

As far as Chapterhouse goes, I can see GW telling them to knock it off. Just because GW doesn't have a model already made doesn't mean they don't intend on creating a model for it. By someone else coming in and "filling the void" doesn't mean that GW can't legally tell them to stop. GW has the intent to create a kit, their intent was made when they added it to the codex. Also, when they sell their bits GW has the ability to tell them to stop marketing them with their product because it could confuse people. Case in point, I bought a Salamanders Army off of eBay. The seller stated it had Forgeworld Bits. When I got the army it had two forgeworld combi flammers, set of bionic legs, and terminator shoulder pads on the termie assault team. The tactical marines all had chapterhouse shoulder pads. I'm not upset but these bits were listed as being "Forgeworld" so I wasn't expecting it. This is the real reason I can see people could get confused with their bits. GW does have a valid claim - they can tell Chapterhouse to stop marketing their products to be used in conjunction with their kits. When you look their webpage up, it even says "Chapterhouse Studios specialize in casting, sculpting and selling custom Warhammer and 40k bits and accessories." GW would have less of a leg to stand on if they made general bits but since its specific to their models, they take issue with it. Chapterhouse markets their products as "Infantry and Shoulder Pad Bits compatible with Space Marine® models", "Heads Compatable with Space Marine® Models", "Tervigon kit to upgrade Carnifex", "Mycetic Spore", etc. Since they are marketing these items as the model in GW's codex, they have every right to tell them to stop the way they are marketing their products as it can cause confusion. While they may or may not have a strong leg to stand on for making the bits, GW has every right to tell them to change the name of their products so it doesn't cause confusion.

Then again if you're wanting to find some cheap GW, you can try and order from a chinese company <link redacted; please don't link to sites where copyright infringement occurs --Janthkin> where you too can buy all of the forgeworld items you want at about half the price GW sells it. They even have all of those limited edition models as well like the White Dwarf, Harry the Hammer, GamesDay models, etc. This is what GW is also fighting in conjunction with Chapterhouse since there are a lot of other Companies that are not as subtle as Chapterhouse. I wouldn't order from them only because its suspect that I may or may not get the mini's I ask for and I know they are fakes since they don't hide it. Heck I think they even have Chapterhouse bits in there as Gamesworkshop since they do shoulder pads and other bits too.

So you can copyright a hairstyle, basically? Or are you saying you can copyright the hairstyle in combination with them being shirtless? Because I think dwarves aren't a unique GW concept and that's really all they came up with on their own.

Obviously not the concept of dwarves, but the concept of "Slayers" that are basically butt nakee with BIIIG orangy mohicans is afaik unique to WHFB.
AoW decide to produce a unit not of generic dwarves, but this type of dwarf known as a Slayer. And they also are near butt nakee with BIIIG orangy mohicans.

Like I said, I have not come across a "Slayer" anywhere else, but stand to be corrected.

notprop wrote:GW asked CHS to change aspects of their site.

CHS didn't and sought legal representation, got it and then changed their site.

A C&D is just a Notice that says here is the situation, [please] could you remedy this by X. Of course its not enforcable, it is advisory in its nature.

The point I was trying to make (however moot at this point in time) was; why not cut out the legal bit and change the site in the first place rather than getting a bee in your bonnet? Seems like allot less hassle to work with GW, a company that CHS states it likes than to go down this route.

No, GW's C&D told CHS to absolutely stop producing a list of items and to destroy the molds for their production. There was nothing advisory in nature about the C&D. I would suggest that you read the other thread on this subject in its entirety, as well as several others that have started in the past year to discuss this specific case.

Secondly, a C&D is absolutely not a friendly notice. It is a notice of intent to file legal action if the potential defendant does not comply with {X}. Sending a C&D if you have no intention of filing legal action can be viewed as malicious action and is grounds for suit by the person who received the C&D.

I understand the point you were trying to make, but, frankly, it's a terrible point. Why, by all that is holy, should a person who truely and honestly believes that they are acting within the law cave in to threats of legal action from someone?

@Boyd: Didn't Raging Hero's release their Lammasu/Manticore kit prior to GW releasing theirs? I'm fairly certain I'm correct.

boyd wrote:Just because GW doesn't have a model already made doesn't mean they don't intend on creating a model for it. By someone else coming in and "filling the void" doesn't mean that GW can't legally tell them to stop. GW has the intent to create a kit, their intent was made when they added it to the codex.

Intent is irrelevant, especially in the copyright context. Copyright doesn't attach until there's an expression.

The fishy part arises with the GW picture of a Tervigon and Chapterhouse possibly making a model based on that picture)

boyd wrote:Also, when they sell their bits GW has the ability to tell them to stop marketing them with their product because it could confuse people.

GW does not enjoy a monopoly on products that can fit with their models. How the shoulderpads, heads, backpacks, and other bits fit together are not copyrightable because they're functional elements of the models. What GW does enjoy is a monopoly on their artistic expression of the models - which is where the dispute between Chapterhouse arises. GW's claim against CH is not that they're making compatable bits, it's that those bits infringe some GW copyright.

boyd wrote:GW does have a valid claim - they can tell Chapterhouse to stop marketing their products to be used in conjunction with their kits. When you look their webpage up, it even says "Chapterhouse Studios specialize in casting, sculpting and selling custom Warhammer and 40k bits and accessories." GW would have less of a leg to stand on if they made general bits but since its specific to their models, they take issue with it. Chapterhouse markets their products as "Infantry and Shoulder Pad Bits compatible with Space Marine® models", "Heads Compatable with Space Marine® Models", "Tervigon kit to upgrade Carnifex", "Mycetic Spore", etc.

It appears you're making a trademark argument here, but it's based on an incorrect understanding of the law.

First, the products are not sold as the trademarked good, they're sold as compatable with those goods. Second, Chapterhouse has a pretty good nominiative fair use defense because they're using GW's marks not to sell their products but to describe their use (compatible with Space Marine models). It's GW's argument that by claiming something is compatable with their product that it suggests sponsorship. This is seemingly at odds with trademark law on the issue.

boyd wrote:Since they are marketing these items as the model in GW's codex, they have every right to tell them to stop the way they are marketing their products as it can cause confusion. While they may or may not have a strong leg to stand on for making the bits, GW has every right to tell them to change the name of their products so it doesn't cause confusion.

I'm not sure if you're asserting that GW has the right tell CH to change their marketing and products or that GW has the legal right to force CH to change their marketing and products. However, as I pointed out, Chapterhouse has a pretty good nominative fair use defense on the marketing front, because the reference to the GW trademarks is not suggesting sponsorship, but rather suggesting compatability.

As for the rest...please don't link to recasting sites.

Infreak wrote:@Boyd: Didn't Raging Hero's release their Lammasu/Manticore kit prior to GW releasing theirs? I'm fairly certain I'm correct.

Raging Heros was a couple decades too late. GW's ugly Lammasu is Big Hat era Chaos Dwarf. Guessing mid eighties, but I the link is blocked where I could confirm it.

Infreak wrote:@Boyd: Didn't Raging Hero's release their Lammasu/Manticore kit prior to GW releasing theirs? I'm fairly certain I'm correct.

GW re-released theirs. It's an old model, just re-released. So, no, GW did have the face already sculpted before Raging Heroes, by MANY years.

And to the poster who argued 'generic fantasy' from AoW, don't forget the lizardman they made. If you try to claim Aztec lizardmen with clubby swords as 'generic fantasy,' you're just trying too hard. I'm middle of the fence on this whole thing-I haven't sided with either company. Hell, I buy AoW, just like I used to buy Reaper minis to supplement my armies. I think GW and Chapterhouse both screwed up to a certain extent, neither are consistent, and this whole mess is going to leave one group screwed-the fans. No matter what happens, we're gonna be the ones paying for it. GW wins? We don't see Eldar/Tyranid models for a LONG time. GW loses? Price hike to pay legal fees. It's bad either way it goes. Both companies should have agree to settle out of court if they cared about their walle-I mean, uh, customers.