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.

Edited because biccat explained it allot better than me.

GW was a few millenia too late.

timetowaste85 wrote:GW loses? Price hike to pay legal fees.

Nope. GW looses means that they have to start releasing a more complete set of miniatures to go with their Codexes / Army Books. i.e. the customers win.

Loser pays most legal fees. You think GW is just going to eat that cost? Fat chance. It comes back on us. Saying "Nope" to that is naive.

Sidstyler wrote:
So you can copyright a hairstyle, basically? Or are you saying you can copyright the hairstyle in combination with them being shirtless?

Absolutely you can copyright a hairstyle on a model. It's part of the model.

It's the likeness of models that is important.

timetowaste85 wrote:Loser pays most legal fees.

This is not correct.

Sometimes the loser has to pay legal fees, but usually each side bears their own costs.

http://www.tekumel.com/world_nonhumans10.html

I was thinking specifically of the 3 examples the earlier poster used -- yeah, the ogre is a bit iffy.

Orcs and lizardmen were both in D&D way before they were in Warhammer, and of course Orcs are from LotR before that. Can't really see GW making much of a go of sueing anyone for making orcs that look similar to theirs, given theirs look broadly similar to everyone else's too...

AFAIK GW haven't trademarked the word "Marauder", but that particular one looks quite like the GW mini of that name, and even *more* like the Warhammer Online marauder.

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.
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.

Two comments:

1.) Concering the slayers: AFAIK some of the best GW slayers were sculpted by Felix, so he makes sculpts close to his earlier sculpts basically, making things complicated (in UK people can lose copyrights of their own products, e.g. in this case to GW by contract; in Germany noone can lose copyright on his own products).

2.) Concerning Raging Heroes: The manticore is the main product, which is a legally unproblematic sculpt and still sold. Grimstonefire suggested to add a Lammassu head which was minimal effort for a good extra of sales. The inner circle of Chaos Dwarf fans all got theirs immediately after release. Then sales dropped and the C&D letter by GW arrived. Raging Heroes just said, it is not worth the effort to fight this out and dropped the lammassu head. While GW's claims are a bit weak (Lammassu being a mythlogical beast and the sculpt obviously full of original content while having some similarities with the old GW model), not much harm was done to Raging Heroes or the Chaos Dwarf community, even when some late-comers won't get a superior Lammassu miniature now.

Another comment to an earlier post (mentioned before but worth repeating):
The Chapterhouse lawsuit is not about some minor flaws of the website, it is about destroying all moulds and pay hefty compensation. GW just can't give a legal reason up to now, why Chapterhouse should do that. All indications point at Chapterhouse having done nothing wrong (except the already made changes in naming on the website).

In reading all this, I think it does point to the Privateer Press method of releases as potentially being easier to protect and easier to maintain a profit curve.

Every 6 months or so, you shove out a new update with each Codex getting a mini "wave" of a handful of models. Then you aren't left with a 10 year gap from initial release to continued lack of model.

It's probably too difficult given that SM have as many differnet flavors as the entirety of the half dozen each PP game system has.

Ian Sturrock wrote: Can't really see GW making much of a go of sueing anyone for making orcs that look similar to theirs, given theirs look broadly similar to everyone else's too...

Pre-GW LOTR Orcs:



D&D Style Orcs:




In fact, the only style of Orcs I could find that look like GW's(other than GW's and AoW's) is Warcraft Orcs, which are arguably based on GW's if the rumours about the original Warcraft have any basis

Saldiven wrote:

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

Luckily, the vast majority of judges have at the very least three quarters of a brain and actually look at the laws involved when making their decisions.

So, tell me, Chim....where did you get your law degree from that makes you so certain in this case?

You will have to show me where I said I was certain GW will win this case.

Identify being the key word here. The same way anyone who knows 40k could view the CHS site and straight away identify which game they target even with the descriptions/text missing.

Chimaera wrote:You will have to show me where I said I was certain GW will win this case.
Identify being the key word here. The same way anyone who knows 40k could view the CHS site and straight away identify which game they target even with the descriptions/text missing.

Irrelevant. You made a statement that is obviously wrong for everyone familiar with this lawsuit and/or copyright in general.
Things are not the way, your layman view thinks it should be.

Chimaera wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

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

Luckily, the vast majority of judges have at the very least three quarters of a brain and actually look at the laws involved when making their decisions.

So, tell me, Chim....where did you get your law degree from that makes you so certain in this case?

You will have to show me where I said I was certain GW will win this case.

Identify being the key word here. The same way anyone who knows 40k could view the CHS site and straight away identify which game they target even with the descriptions/text missing.

What you have failed to realise again is that that is not how the law works. It doesn't matter that they are "targeting" GW games or not. It doesn't matter because GW hasn't been able to prove so far that it has the sole rights to those concepts and even if they did, CHS work can still be considered derivative work and isn't in breach of any Copyright Laws, i.e. they aren't copying any of GWs minis they are simply creating original missing minis and conversion kits to go on original GW minis.

Kroothawk wrote:
The Chapterhouse lawsuit is not about some minor flaws of the website, it is about destroying all moulds and pay hefty compensation. GW just can't give a legal reason up to now, why Chapterhouse should do that. All indications point at Chapterhouse having done nothing wrong (except the already made changes in naming on the website).

Where did we get the info that GW demanded that CH burn their company to the ground? I'm curious as Mr. Chapterhouse has posted in this thread stating that no-one other than GW and his company have seen the relevant letters/documents.

Maybe it is good to remember that GW started by doing miniatures for the D&D game (in other words "obviously parasiting on TSR's IP"). Only much later, they developed their own game. Difficult to tell, how much D&D is still in GW.

plastictrees wrote:Where did we get the info that GW demanded that CH burn their company to the ground? I'm curious as Mr. Chapterhouse has posted in this thread stating that no-one other than GW and his company have seen the relevant letters/documents.

Official and public lawsuit files, part of GW's official accusation, which states the "destroy moulds and pay compensation" bit. Maybe have a look at the Chapterhouse lawsuit thread, as we are quite off-topic here now.

plastictrees wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:
The Chapterhouse lawsuit is not about some minor flaws of the website, it is about destroying all moulds and pay hefty compensation. GW just can't give a legal reason up to now, why Chapterhouse should do that. All indications point at Chapterhouse having done nothing wrong (except the already made changes in naming on the website).

Where did we get the info that GW demanded that CH burn their company to the ground? I'm curious as Mr. Chapterhouse has posted in this thread stating that no-one other than GW and his company have seen the relevant letters/documents.

The (publicly-available) complaint calls for destruction of molds. I'll refer you back to the original "CH is being sued" thread.

StraightSilvers quoted post in the OP discusses CH having the opportunity to comply with GWs complaints, so I'm not sure how that question was OT.
"Guessing why a company is doing some things" would presumably be the only discussion truly on topic for this thread.

PhantomViper wrote:

Chimaera wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

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

Luckily, the vast majority of judges have at the very least three quarters of a brain and actually look at the laws involved when making their decisions.

So, tell me, Chim....where did you get your law degree from that makes you so certain in this case?

You will have to show me where I said I was certain GW will win this case.

Identify being the key word here. The same way anyone who knows 40k could view the CHS site and straight away identify which game they target even with the descriptions/text missing.

What you have failed to realise again is that that is not how the law works. It doesn't matter that they are "targeting" GW games or not. It doesn't matter because GW hasn't been able to prove so far that it has the sole rights to those concepts and even if they did, CHS work can still be considered derivative work and isn't in breach of any Copyright Laws, i.e. they aren't copying any of GWs minis they are simply creating original missing minis and conversion kits to go on original GW minis.

And what you and some others fail to realise again is I am not trying to quote how the law works or even understand it for that matter. I will leave that to others who are qualified in that field and not try to become some sort of armchair lawyer.

What I am allowed to do is exercise my opinion based on what I see mixed with a good sprinkling of common sense. I am well aware the law doesn't allow for common sense in many legal instances and I do not regard this matter any differently.

Like many others on here I to will be interested in the outcome. Yes I may side with GW in this instance but only because I think they have a fair call. I understand others may feel CHS are right for whatever reasons but ultimately nobody can deny CHS shamelessly make direct reference visually to GW product/design on their site. While this may turn out to be legally acceptable it doesn't detract from the fact that CHS are riding on the back of another companies creative, marketing and financial efforts while paying none of the substantial costs associated with these efforts. I think this concept is easy enough for anyone to understand but maybe not?

And it's about time GW stop riding on the backs of others' creativity and prove what IP they own. Wow..the argument does work both ways.

Rymafyr wrote:And it's about time GW stop riding on the backs of others' creativity and prove what IP they own. Wow..the argument does work both ways.

Surely if GW were riding on the back of someone elses concept all this time they would have been legally called out by now?

timetowaste85 wrote:
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.

One could argue TSR/WOTC had the lizardman concept, with or without aztec clubs decades before GW did as a concept.....

plastictrees wrote:StraightSilvers quoted post in the OP discusses CH having the opportunity to comply with GWs complaints, so I'm not sure how that question was OT.
"Guessing why a company is doing some things" would presumably be the only discussion truly on topic for this thread.

I'm still not sure where StraightSilvers' information comes from, so I haven't a clue.

But we know GW is seeking "the destruction of all infringing merchandise and molds and means of producing the same" because it's in the complaint they filed with the courts.

(It's not that your question was OT, it's that the answer to the question of "Where did we get the info that GW demanded that CH burn their company to the ground?" exists in information from that very old thread.)

Chimaera wrote:

Rymafyr wrote:And it's about time GW stop riding on the backs of others' creativity and prove what IP they own. Wow..the argument does work both ways.

Surely if GW were riding on the back of someone elses concept all this time they would have been legally called out by now?

You don't spend much time in 40k General Discussion do you? These threads pop up weekly.

carmachu wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:
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.

One could argue TSR/WOTC had the lizardman concept, with or without aztec clubs decades before GW did as a concept.....

This may be correct but again why has GW been left to continue withour interuption legally if they are in the wrong. I also think 40k has a much more distinctive GW branding than there fantasy side and is much more easily identifiable.

Zefig wrote:

Chimaera wrote:

Rymafyr wrote:And it's about time GW stop riding on the backs of others' creativity and prove what IP they own. Wow..the argument does work both ways.

Surely if GW were riding on the back of someone elses concept all this time they would have been legally called out by now?

You don't spend much time in 40k General Discussion do you? These threads pop up weekly.

No I don't. Who has called GW out legally for riding on the back of their product/efforts?

Chimaera wrote:
This may be correct but again why has GW been left to continue withour interuption legally if they are in the wrong. I also think 40k has a much more distinctive GW branding than there fantasy side and is much more easily identifiable.

I'm sure the lawyers will correct me, but if I recall right from the other thread, you cant trademark/copyright concepts. Which is what lizardmen- with swords, clubs, aztec weapons, all qualify as.

No 40k is NOT anymore distictive then fantasy. VArious concepts are just as influenced by other items as fantasy.

carmachu wrote:

Chimaera wrote:
This may be correct but again why has GW been left to continue withour interuption legally if they are in the wrong. I also think 40k has a much more distinctive GW branding than there fantasy side and is much more easily identifiable.

I'm sure the lawyers will correct me, but if I recall right from the other thread, you cant trademark/copyright concepts. Which is what lizardmen- with swords, clubs, aztec weapons, all qualify as.

No 40k is NOT anymore distictive then fantasy. VArious concepts are just as influenced by other items as fantasy.

Totally take your point on the fantasy stuff but are you honestly telling me if you mixed a 40K Space Marine in with 20 other sci-fi Marine miniatures out there it wouldn't be distinctive. The same goes for a lot of the other 40K armies. Can anyone show me miniatures from another game that look quite same as 40K ones do and were produced before 40K? Maybe they are out there but I am not aware of them.

Chimaera wrote:
No I don't. Who has called GW out legally for riding on the back of their product/efforts?

You can't pick and choose your arguments mate, either you are arguing for the legality of the actions of a company or you are arguing for the morality of them.

You can't say that GW are the good guys because they are acting according to the law even if not the spirit of stealing someone else's creative work then turn around and say that CHS are the bad guys for exactly the same reasons.

For an example of GW borrowing someone else's creative work you just have to look at Tyrannids vs Geiger's Aliens for instance. Any laymen looking at Tyrannids will think that they are one and the same (I saw this happening).

PhantomViper wrote:
You can't say that GW are the good guys because they are acting according to the law even if not the spirit of stealing someone else's creative work then turn around and say that CHS are the bad guys for exactly the same reasons.

Neither are good or bad. They are both businesses whose only interest is in making money and squashing threats to that money making. They are the same in that regard.

Where they aren't the same is that GW exists without Chapterhouse. Chapterhouse only exists because of GW.

PhantomViper wrote:

Chimaera wrote:
No I don't. Who has called GW out legally for riding on the back of their product/efforts?

You can't pick and choose your arguments mate, either you are arguing for the legality of the actions of a company or you are arguing for the morality of them.

You can't say that GW are the good guys because they are acting according to the law even if not the spirit of stealing someone else's creative work then turn around and say that CHS are the bad guys for exactly the same reasons.

For an example of GW borrowing someone else's creative work you just have to look at Tyrannids vs Geiger's Aliens for instance. Any laymen looking at Tyrannids will think that they are one and the same (I saw this happening).

I am not picking my argument you were penning me into one I hadn't made. If you want put my argument into a category it would be one of common sense. Again as mentioned before I am aware the law doesn't operate on the same basic level.

Can you show me positively where GW have stolen someones creative work in miniature form, completely ripped off a current concept/product or ridden on the back of someone elses efforts in the current market place? Like I said surely they would have been pulled up by now.

I knew someone would quote Aliens. Actually the only models that resemble Aliens out of the Tyranids are the Genestealers. If Geiger felt GW had ripped his concept so badly I am sure the means were there for a legal challenge. Maybe Geiger didn't see GW as a threat to his business at the time? It's not like GW built the company on the back of Aliens. Can you give me examples of where GW are riding on the back of going concerns of other miniature companies?

DarknessEternal wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
You can't say that GW are the good guys because they are acting according to the law even if not the spirit of stealing someone else's creative work then turn around and say that CHS are the bad guys for exactly the same reasons.

Neither are good or bad. They are both businesses whose only interest is in making money and squashing threats to that money making. They are the same in that regard.

Where they aren't the same is that GW exists without Chapterhouse. Chapterhouse only exists because of GW.

Exactly!