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.

Khestra the Unbeheld wrote:Like it or not, Chapterhouse has indeed violated GW's legal property rights as outlined in the Legal section on GW's site, specifically the use of terms and symbols they invented. Depending on the terms of the suit and what GW claims, then Chapterhouse is very liable and will most likely be found guilty under US copyright law. GW is 90% certain to win this one if their lawyers aren't total idiots.

I don't think what GW has posted on their website is exactly what will be used to determine if there was indeed a breach of ip. Personally I think there was but not because of what GW has posted on their website.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kroothawk wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Well, seeing he's been pretty determined to dance around the point that CH very much appear to have breeched IP, in favour of portraying GW as some vicious corporate entity.... My suspicions are not unjustified.

I asked you to give an example for an IP breach in the products that justify all CH moulds to be destroyed, but you seem not be able to give one.

Khestra the Unbeheld wrote:GW is 90% certain to win this one if their lawyers aren't total idiots.

Mr Mystery wrote:No, but it does make it unwise in the extreme to test that particular water, as I suspect GW know a lot more than we do about Copyright and IP Laws.

Are we talking about the same GW that is obviously sueing the wrong sculptor for the super heavy?

BTW Ford doesn't sue Goodyear for mentioning which tire fits which car. So GW is doing something special.

You need to remember that when filing a lawsuit against someone it is customary to not only throw every possible violation against them but to ask for the worst possible outcome. I doubt anyone really believes that every single mold will be destroyed. To be honest I would think that at worst a small number might be destroyed but a lot of the CH stuff is decently generic enough to not be a problem in my opinion.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kroothawk wrote:Still dancing around the fact that GW doesn't own the IP on arrows, fists and dragons? But implying with the Ford example that CH puts "Games Workshop" on their products?

Perhaps not but arrows pointing up on shoulder pads for tactical squads is obviously part of the warhammer 40k IP and is a very prominent part at that. So GW doesn't own the IP for shoulder pads, they don't own the IP on arrows, and they don't even own the IP on space marines! But when you put that arrow (in about the same dimensions), in the same position, on a shoulder pad that looks like the ones that space marines have worn for the last 20 years that might be a problem. ESPECIALLY when you call them tactical shoulder pads.........

Lets just say that personally I wouldn't want to take the chance in court on defending that.

And I believe that is indeed the different between IP and Copyright?

IP being contextual, Copyright being wider? I don't actually know this for sure, hence the question marks.

Saldiven wrote: I personally feel that GW has the right to earn money from their creation (which 40k is) and they should be able to determine if they want another company making money off of their creation or not.

er... hang on - didn't steve jackson create 40k n all that n sell it in the 80's to the current owners of gw? i thought that they didnt create it - they bought the right to use it.... so since then theyve added it it, but they didnt create it.... mind you - im not sure that makes any diff leagally speaking...

Nope.

Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone founded Games Workshop, which back then was largely a re-seller and importer of other games.

As far as I remember, they weren't involved in the design of Fantasy or 40k?

DB wrote:

Saldiven wrote: I personally feel that GW has the right to earn money from their creation (which 40k is) and they should be able to determine if they want another company making money off of their creation or not.

er... hang on - didn't steve jackson create 40k n all that n sell it in the 80's to the current owners of gw? i thought that they didnt create it - they bought the right to use it....

Like Mr. Mystery stated it was my understanding that it was Rick Priestley who came up with Rogue Trader which then evolved into what we now know as Warhammer 40k

Check out this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_Trader_(Warhammer_40,000)

brettz123 wrote:

DB wrote:

Saldiven wrote: I personally feel that GW has the right to earn money from their creation (which 40k is) and they should be able to determine if they want another company making money off of their creation or not.

er... hang on - didn't steve jackson create 40k n all that n sell it in the 80's to the current owners of gw? i thought that they didnt create it - they bought the right to use it....

Like Mr. Mystery stated it was my understanding that it was Rick Priestley who came up with Rogue Trader which then evolved into what we now know as Warhammer 40k

Check out this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_Trader_(Warhammer_40,000)

interesting stuff......

Amaya wrote:Eactly. They crossed the line and should be hit for that infringement. Nothing wrong with making conversions/add ons.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with making conversion packs, I'm saying they made them while knowingly violated the IP, and they released the kits with names under a registered bIP, therefore they should pay the consequences.

Mr Mystery wrote:Name one.

Every form of religious heresy ever?

Amaya wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Name one.

Every form of religious heresy ever?

Except none of those religious heresies involved gigantic shoulderpads.

Context, again, matters.

I'm only reading about this now, and don't know much about Chapter House.

So, what's the difference between Forge World, and the Chapter House? Forge World being backed by GW I'm guessing?

I'd rather have a compromise than one or the others 'winning'
Like mentioned earlier. Why not just change the names and whatnot to what GW likes, or even share some of the profits with GW. I'm sure that would help settle things.

Sovereign6 wrote:I'm only reading about this now, and don't know much about Chapter House.

So, what's the difference between Forge World, and the Chapter House? Forge World being backed by GW I'm guessing?

I'd rather have a compromise than one or the others 'winning'
Like mentioned earlier. Why not just change the names and whatnot to what GW likes, or even share some of the profits with GW. I'm sure that would help settle things.

Uhhhhhh Forge World is a part of GW.......

Also GW probably isn't looking to compromise to be honest with you. It is there game and they don't want poor quality add ons by third parties. Why should they share their potential profits with some company who has done none of the leg work they did making 40k what it is?

Mr Mystery wrote:And I believe that is indeed the different between IP and Copyright?

IP being contextual, Copyright being wider? I don't actually know this for sure, hence the question marks.

It's a good thing you've been posting dozens of times in these threads without knowing anything about IP law.

To quote Wikipedia:

"Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of creations of the mind for which property rights are recognized—and the corresponding fields of law.[1] Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions."

Kanluwen wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Name one.

Every form of religious heresy ever?

Except none of those religious heresies involved gigantic shoulderpads.

Context, again, matters.

So I can't malke a completely seperate universe that has no relation to 40k other than the use of power armour (which is in a lot of Sci FI) and a heresy and I would be infringing on GW's IP?

Sovereign6 wrote:I'm only reading about this now, and don't know much about Chapter House.
So, what's the difference between Forge World, and the Chapter House? Forge World being backed by GW I'm guessing?

Forge World is owned by Games Workshop.

I'd rather have a compromise than one or the others 'winning'
Like mentioned earlier. Why not just change the names and whatnot to what GW likes, or even share some of the profits with GW. I'm sure that would help settle things.

Because that's not how it works. Chapterhouse would have to be licensed and pay GW for the rights to use their names and likenesses on their product. They'd also have to be able to meet GW's standards for sculpting/production, etc.

In short: CH would go broke just meeting the requirements of the licensing.

Amaya wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Name one.

Every form of religious heresy ever?

Except none of those religious heresies involved gigantic shoulderpads.

Context, again, matters.

So I can't malke a completely seperate universe that has no relation to 40k other than the use of power armour (which is in a lot of Sci FI) and a heresy and I would be infringing on GW's IP?

No you would not (well maybe depending on the details).... but no you wouldn't.

Indeed. The context of 'pre-heresy' armour is GW's IP, as in terms of wargaming, pre-heresy is distinctly 40k.

Shoulder pads with bumps on them are copyrighted, what?

In the context of powered armour, that look belongs to GW. Outside that context, possibly someone else, but not GW.

Mr Mystery wrote:Indeed. The context of 'pre-heresy' armour is GW's IP, as in terms of wargaming, pre-heresy is distinctly 40k.

I really don't mean to pick on you, but you should post "Disclaimer: I don't know anything about IP law" in every single one of your posts. Somebody might actually listen to something you say.

I mean you're correct, in that the idea of there being power armor that predates the heresy in GW's IP, but it's probably not protected. Copyrights protect expressions of an idea, while trademarks protect names and logos in fairly specific uses.

I'm guessing Horus Heresy would be a protected trademark, but I doubt any company that makes "pre-heresy power armor" would be found to have violated a trademark. The only problem would be if it looked too similar to GW's models.

I don't want to sound like a dick, but this is a complex area of law, and nearly everything everybody thinks they knows is wrong.

Hell, even I didn't know about the rules of common law trademark they're suing under, until I read up on them.

Well indeed. Though I'd sugges those who do know what they're gibbering on about should have a disclaimer to that effect. Otherwise I tend to take 'I have no real idea of the subject matter at hand' as something of a given on the Interwebs!

Lol. I'm a lawyer, but not in IP. But if you want to talk disability, I'm your man.

It's not just you. This thread is full of people thinking with their gut, or their heart, which is fine, but isn't close to what this lawsuit will turn on. It's a pretty dry conflict between two companies.

Well, here's a little snippet I've picked up from the Road Traffic Act 1988....the speed of the vehicles involved in a Road Traffic Incident doesn't matter a jot when working out proximate cause!

Yeah! Seriously! I could be doing 340 miles an hour round that roundabout, but if you fail to give way the right, and I hit your vehicle, it's still you at fault! And you'd be surprised how many oiks in other Insurance companies don't appear to know this!

Amaya wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Name one.

Every form of religious heresy ever?

Nice try- except Chapterhouse didn't market their items as a religious heresy model. They sold "Pre Heresy Thousand Sons Terminator Shoulderpads", for example. There is no way that they have the right to do this without a license, as only GW would have the legal right to sell such a named product.

Chapterhouse has been doing this over, and over, and over again. They knew where the line was, and conscientiously stepped over it.

Frankly, I'm really surprised that this is so hard for so many gamers to recognize. The fact that 2/3rds of the survey people favor Chapterhouse is really shocking to me.

You can sell little resin bit with scarabs on them all day. Maybe they are actionable, maybe not. That's for a judge to decide. But you blatantly step over the line into "sue me" territory when you sell a product as Chapterhouse has.

Can you sell "Scarab Shoulder Pads"? Probably. Can you sell "Pre Heresy Thousand Sons Terminator Shoulder Pads"? Not unless you have the legal rights to "Horus Heresy", "Pre-Heresy", "Thousand Sons", "Terminators". Depending on how thorough GW was will probably determine how this gets decided. But GW is fairly thorough with their IP and registering it (trademarks, copyrights, artwork, written material, etc).

It's the use of specific imagery and language that brought this on them.

Yeah, British traffic law wasn't tested heavily on the Ohio Bar...

Thing is, Chapterhouse say they consulted a lawyer before going down this path.

Which is great and all, but I guess the advice given depends not just how much you paid (this seems a bit poorly worded, hence the edit. It's iimplying that the more you spend on a Lawyer, the more time they have to research the subject in hand), but also the question asked.

I'd imagine 'is it legal to produce odds and sods for other peoples models' would produce a very different answer to 'is it legal to produce odds and sods for other peoples models, using IP and Copyright we do not ourselves own'

LittleLeadMen wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Name one.

Every form of religious heresy ever?

Nice try- except Chapterhouse didn't market their items as a religious heresy model. They sold "Pre Heresy Thousand Sons Terminator Shoulderpads", for example. There is no way that they have the right to do this without a license, as only GW would have the legal right to sell such a named product.

Chapterhouse has been doing this over, and over, and over again. They knew where the line was, and conscientiously stepped over it.

Frankly, I'm really surprised that this is so hard for so many gamers to recognize. The fact that 2/3rds of the survey people favor Chapterhouse is really shocking to me.

Which is one of the reasons many of us opposed the idea of a binary poll. I think that outside of the labeling, chapterhouse was in the clear. And even then, was anybody actually confused by the labeling? Were people buying that stuff thinking it was official?

I'm equally surprised at how emotionally invested so many people appear to be in arguing against CH. The legal matter will be resolved on its own, but from a fairness or ethical standpoint, I'm really not sure how what Chapterhouse did actually hurt anybody. Nobody got ripped off, even GW admits in it's complaint that monetary damages can't be ascribed. So, outside of the technical legal aspect, what is really the problem? Why so upset?

Quick question, kind of relating to this topic Mr P....

As I understand it, this is something of a new case in the eyes of the law, with nothing clear cut to settle it as of now. Thusly, do you think the potential precedent this case might set would have any bearing on the outcome?

I'm not upset, per se, nor overly emotional invested. From a purely personal standpoint, I just have found CHapterhouse to come across as fairly arrogant, and obnoxious, while knowing they were close to, or over, the IP "line".

I work in entertainment, film & television. I'm a strong proponent of intellectual property rights, as I believe that all human beings have a right to create original works and have those rights reserved and protected. Creators also have the fundamental moral property right to benefit financially from their risk, work, and act of creation.

Regardless of what you think of GW, I personally know many of those people, and I personally know that they work very hard to create this product. They're not perfect, by any measure. They also make plenty of odd business and marketing decisions, decisions that I wouldn't make if I were i charge (a little back seat driving, arm chair quarterbacking, if you will).

But as far as I'm concerned, they just sell toys, so it's really not that big of a deal. Yet day in and day out, I visit my toy soldier sites for a little diversion and I constantly come across tons of ridiculous vitriol for GW. Minor complaints get elevated to uncalled for levels. Frankly, the more I play 40k (and I've played since the early 90's), the more I hate 40k players in general. By in large they're whiny and they're cheap.

This is, of course, a gross exaggeration. But there's a core truth to it. I'm always surprised by the cynicism, anger, and flat out weirdness of people regarding.... toys.

When it comes to this specific lawsuit, as an entertainment person who is deeply committed to intellectual property rights (member of the California Copyright Conference, for example), I dislike it when people use other people's creations for profit. And in some ways, I can accept it when it happens, maybe on a small level for private use. But when the offending party is so blatant, and unrepentant, it bugs me a bit. I'm not angry, but I have to admit I find some pleasure in the idea of Chapterhouse finally getting shut down for infringement.

If you want to be creative, run your own business. Make your own game. Make your own sculpts, etc. And if you really exist just to service the needs of a preexisting game, get a license. And if that can't happen, and you STILL want to tread into the IP danger zone, don't be an obnoxious git about it. Do it quietly, name things safely, etc.

That's where I'm coming from on this.

Mr Mystery wrote:Quick question, kind of relating to this topic Mr P....

As I understand it, this is something of a new case in the eyes of the law, with nothing clear cut to settle it as of now. Thusly, do you think the potential precedent this case might set would have any bearing on the outcome?

That's a complicated question. In a common law court (nearly all American courts of general jurisdiction), every case creates precedent. The goal of the common law is treat similar situations in a similar way.

That said, trial courts (the first level, where evidence is introduced, a jury sits, etc) generally don't create much precedent. Courts of appeals (which settle questions of law, not of fact) are far more influential. In fact, the rule of thumb is that you are only bound by the precedent of the court you are in, and those to which you can appeal from there. So, if you've got a really great case from the sixth circuit, but you're in the eighth, the court could tell you to take a hike. They probably wouldn't, but you can't expect to introduct other jurisdictions decisions.

One of the problems we have in this discussion is that there probably is some pretty similar cases out there. At the end of the day, Chapterhouse is simply making after-market accessories, and marketing them using GW's IP. The creations themselves aren't the biggest issue here, but how they were represented. It's hard to think of another industry where anybody cares about what stuff is called more than how it looks. So, yeah, there would be some precedent. It's just not very interesting precedent.

So no, I don't think the court is going to be swayed by this being a novel area of the law. This isn't a fresh legal theory, it's just a very petty little dispute.

Reading the complaint, I'm more and more inclined to think that Chapterhouse may have gone too far by labelling their stuff with GW's trademarks. But given that GW is really only asking them to stop (and potentially get some statutory damages, which aren't based on actual economic losses), CH might be able to settle this quickly.

Polonius wrote:Which is one of the reasons many of us opposed the idea of a binary poll. I think that outside of the labeling, chapterhouse was in the clear. And even then, was anybody actually confused by the labeling? Were people buying that stuff thinking it was official?

I can guarantee there are folks out there that could get confused. Its easy for us to know the difference, as this is our hobby, but to a regular non-hobbyist its all the same, I bet. If I had a dollar every time someone brought in a POS knockoff/offbrand dirtbike or scooter into my motorcycle shop and thought it was a name brand bike, I could buy CH and probably pay these upcoming legal fees. It can be confusing to someone who has no product knowledge or is new to the industry.

Polonius wrote:I'm equally surprised at how emotionally invested so many people appear to be in arguing against CH. The legal matter will be resolved on its own, but from a fairness or ethical standpoint, I'm really not sure how what Chapterhouse did actually hurt anybody. Nobody got ripped off, even GW admits in it's complaint that monetary damages can't be ascribed. So, outside of the technical legal aspect, what is really the problem? Why so upset?

The Chapterhouse guy that posts here can come off as a douche to some folks, from what I gather. My only personal beef is that most of their stuff is of questionable quality/artistic ability. But I've bought from them before all the same. Plus GW is most often times portrayed (sometimes rightfully so) as the big bad corporation, and fans of the brand feel the need to defend it. I find myself doing it from time to time, but I try to be reasonable about it. In this case, I feel they are right. Plus it can be fun!