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.

Had you sculpted your own claw and then molded it they would only have threatened to shoot her.

The auto industry is still a terrible analogy for this whole situation, especially when were talking about companies producing models that GW has created rules for but not models for.

Merchandising for books seems much more apt. Want to produce an Obnoxious Boy Wizard action figure? Go nuts. Want to produce a Harry Potter action figure? You're going to have problems.

ph34r wrote:I already have distain for Chapterhouse, based on their terrible website/terrible sculpt quality/overpriced bits.

The fact that they might be interfering with us players receiving actually good quality kits, is just icing on the take of why Chapterhouse is awful.

Funny, some people might say the exact same thing about Games Workshop.

edit: well, probably not the "distain" part, since they would probably say "disdain".

Janthkin wrote:If I was paranoid, it would look like a astroturf smearing campaign directed at CH, since the lawsuit by GW isn't going so hot.

I can't believe this, because to believe that GW is directing an astroturf campaign against CH, you would have to first believe that GW is capable of such a feat.

So GW doesn't have the copyright laws to Tervigons? How does this even make sense. I don't understand at all how GW could get sued for making a model for their game.

biccat wrote:

ph34r wrote:I already have distain for Chapterhouse, based on their terrible website/terrible sculpt quality/overpriced bits.

The fact that they might be interfering with us players receiving actually good quality kits, is just icing on the take of why Chapterhouse is awful.

Funny, some people might say the exact same thing about Games Workshop.

How would Chapterhouse going under prevent anyone from receiving good quality kits?

plastictrees wrote:

Kroothawk wrote: GW lawyers don't know copyright and trademark laws

Kroothawk has declared it to be so and so it must be so.

I've read this at least 3 times now trying to gleam the truth from all of this.

I'm with Kroot and Treesong, while i agree that GW's decision paints Chapterhouse in a bad light, its GW's decision not to release.

There's no legal precedent keeping GW from releasing those models, simply what seems to be paranoia of being challenged in court. And no small wonder, since in a year now their suit isn't even past discovery. (does anyone else remember their job posting for an IP lawyer last february?)

I'm not trying to white-knight Chapterhouse (i still have yet to buy a thing from them and i have 3000 points of nids) but to me this shows some of the sadder inner workings of the GW that we all realized but weren't outright told.

plastictrees wrote:How would Chapterhouse going under prevent anyone from receiving good quality kits?

Tru-scale stormraven kit. Wheeled IG conversion kits. Shoulder Pads. Storm Shields. Vehicle upgrade kits.

A number of products that GW doesn't produce would become unavailable.

plastictrees wrote:The auto industry is still a terrible analogy for this whole situation, especially when were talking about companies producing models that GW has created rules for but not models for.

Merchandising for books seems much more apt. Want to produce an Obnoxious Boy Wizard action figure? Go nuts. Want to produce a Harry Potter action figure? You're going to have problems.

The reason I bring up the automobile industry is because of how those after-market parts suppliers market their items. If you do a search for Mustang conversion kits, you will see something like this:

Body kit for a 1980 Ford Mustang GT.

You will not see something like this:

Body Kit for a 1980 year model popular US automaker's horse named grand touring vehicle.

Many people believe that companies like CHS should market their goods similarly to the second, more absurd example.

KilroyKiljoy wrote:So GW doesn't have the copyright laws to Tervigons? How does this even make sense. I don't understand at all how GW could get sued for making a model for their game.

No, the point is, GW's omnipotency dreams of copyright are currently getting crashed, and it seems that GW is now erring on the other extreme and thinking that everyone else BUT GW has rights on them. They still don't get the concept/model/copyright thing as explained above.

fullheadofhair wrote:I am willing to bet very good money that GW lawyers have a better understanding of IP than 99.9% of people who post here.

Then explain why GW lawyers charged Paulson Games for a Chapterhouse sculpt, when both companies have no connection at all and the correct sculptor is mentioned on every photo. And why GW lawyers can't even file a formally correct accusation since December 2010.

That said I agree on GW not expecting this going to court. I also agree that this is not officially confirmed but as valid as most rumours posted here.
I don't agree that I have a GW hate. And the interest in this thread shows that there is an interest in this issue, so many people seem to disagree that this thread is a waste (500+ visits in less than 3 hours).

BTW the assumption that this is a viral marketing campaign by GW against Chapterhouse is absurd. Everyone knows that GW doesn't believe in marketing.

biccat wrote:

plastictrees wrote:How would Chapterhouse going under prevent anyone from receiving good quality kits?

Tru-scale stormraven kit. Wheeled IG conversion kits. Shoulder Pads. Storm Shields. Vehicle upgrade kits.

A number of products that GW doesn't produce would become unavailable.

You could easily argue that Chapterhouse is killing creativity by offering an easy answer to converting current GW kits.

If GW loses this one, won't it open the doors for all 3rd parties to create models based on GW's IP, and market them as unit types/names that were created by GW? Doesn't that seem kind of wrong. As I said before I am no fan of GW, but it just doesn't seem right to me.

I honestly can't see how the CH Tervigon conversion kit is stopping GW releasing a proper Tervigon model. For starters, with respect to CH, it's just a fat Carnifex and I hope GW had a more evolved concept than that. Secondly, I don't really buy this owning of image concepts either.



Again, respect to Mantic, but High Elves much?

Plus, if this were true, then that four armed giant minotaur I see on these forums occasionally (I forget the miniature company that sculpted it) means you can kiss goodbye to ever seeing a Ghorgon release too.

$pider wrote:If GW loses this one, won't it open the doors for all 3rd parties to create models based on GW's IP, and market them as unit types/names that were created by GW?

Yes, we will see Polish companies doing Ork heads and pre-heresy jump packs and the universe will end.

Let's not forget that GW and Blizzard are famous for "lending" concepts left and right (one reason making claims of IP so difficult for GW). Nothing wrong with that if adding creative content. The Fantasy and SciFi genres prosper from cross-pollination.

paulson games wrote:
I'm sorry guys but this is a total chicken little panic situation, GW iis simply not releasing items because they don't think they will see an adequete return for the investment to make those models. No matter what the cheerleaders say they are about making money and they don't care care that the players have gaping holes in their lists.

Ah, yes. Wasn't the rumor a few months back that the entire nid 2nd wave was canceled, not delayed, but canceled because they had determined that the nid codex had been a failure that didn't come close to meeting whatever projections they had?

Flashman wrote:I honestly can't see how the CH Tervigon conversion kit is stopping GW releasing a proper Tervigon model. For starters, with respect to CH, it's just a fat Carnifex and I hope GW had a more evolved concept than that. Secondly, I don't really buy this owning of image concepts either.



Again, respect to Mantic, but High Elves much?

Plus, if this were true, then that four armed giant minotaur I see on these forums occasionally (I forget the miniature company that sculpted it) means you can kiss goodbye to ever seeing a Ghorgon release too.

Again, this could all be nonsense.

The biggest difference in your last example is that the BaneBeast (I think) minotaur isn't being advertised as a Ghorgon in any way.

plastictrees wrote:The biggest difference in your last example is that the BaneBeast (I think) minotaur isn't being advertised as a Ghorgon in any way.

Fun fact: GW just hired the sculptor of the Banebeast Oxgore and cyclops

(Secretly hoping for someone to make a non-Space Marine so GW will stop this as well )

Kroothawk wrote:

plastictrees wrote:The biggest difference in your last example is that the BaneBeast (I think) minotaur isn't being advertised as a Ghorgon in any way.

Fun fact: GW just hired the sculptor of the Banebeast Oxgore and cyclops

that's pretty win right there.

On the note of this effecting the 2nd wave releases of the Nid codex, even if it is the fault IMO falls not on chapterhouse but GW. They started the lawsuit, they are choosing to delay the release because of the lawsuit, and they haven't been able to get the lawsuit on it's way to being resolved in any timely fashion without completely withdrawing the suit. I'm not going to get into the suit itself but any delay due to the suit isn't chapterhouse's fault for defending against the accusations in court, it's GW's fault for getting into this mess and not being able to get themselves out of it.

Kroothawk wrote:

plastictrees wrote:The biggest difference in your last example is that the BaneBeast (I think) minotaur isn't being advertised as a Ghorgon in any way.

Fun fact: GW just hired the sculptor of the Banebeast Oxgore and cyclops

(Secretly hoping for someone to make a non-Space Marine so GW will stop this as well )

Right, Aragorn Marks. Good for him, finding a steady income as a mini sculptor must be a constant challenge. It will be good to see what he can produce for GW.

plastictrees wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

plastictrees wrote:The biggest difference in your last example is that the BaneBeast (I think) minotaur isn't being advertised as a Ghorgon in any way.

Fun fact: GW just hired the sculptor of the Banebeast Oxgore and cyclops

(Secretly hoping for someone to make a non-Space Marine so GW will stop this as well )

Right, Aragorn Marks. Good for him, finding a steady income as a mini sculptor must be a constant challenge. It will be good to see what he can produce for GW.

Agreed, I liked most of the stuff he did for Privateer Press. Looking forward to see what he produces for GW.

$pider wrote:

plastictrees wrote:Right, Aragorn Marks. Good for him, finding a steady income as a mini sculptor must be a constant challenge. It will be good to see what he can produce for GW.

Agreed, I liked most of the stuff he did for Privateer Press. Looking forward to see what he produces for GW.

Maybe a non-Oxgore first

See, this is an example how unproblematic and constructive things could work out, if both parties act rationally.
Now imagine for a moment how GW could increase Storm Raven sales by offering the Chapterhouse conversion kit in the next WD.
Or Space Wolves by offering the Wolf Rhino conversion kits.
Or Space marines by featuring an article on all Salamander kits including the Salamander Rhino, Land Raider, Drop Dod, heads, shields and shoulder pads.
Just imagine this for a moment. The universe wouldn't end.

Flashman wrote:I honestly can't see how the CH Tervigon conversion kit is stopping GW releasing a proper Tervigon model. For starters, with respect to CH, it's just a fat Carnifex and I hope GW had a more evolved concept than that. Secondly, I don't really buy this owning of image concepts either.



Again, respect to Mantic, but High Elves much?

Plus, if this were true, then that four armed giant minotaur I see on these forums occasionally (I forget the miniature company that sculpted it) means you can kiss goodbye to ever seeing a Ghorgon release too.

If this were truly the case, GW would never have released the Jokaero model after Reaper's hi-tech Orang-utan. Just my personal thought on the matter, but there's so much wrong in the current IP paradigm due to the simple fact that many miniatures being made are unoriginal IP, derivative works or based on pre-existing concepts or designs. Rick Priestly himself said the Jokaero were put in 40K because the model was available in the 2000AD range they were producing at the time. How can the idea of a mythological beast like a manticore (something many miniatures companies have sold prior to GW's offering) be the sole property of a single company?

plastictrees wrote:The auto industry is still a terrible analogy for this whole situation, especially when were talking about companies producing models that GW has created rules for but not models for.

Merchandising for books seems much more apt. Want to produce an Obnoxious Boy Wizard action figure? Go nuts. Want to produce a Harry Potter action figure? You're going to have problems.

And why is that, specifically? Why are third parties denied rights to create, market, and sell a Harry Potter action figure? There's an answer, but it is far from as simple as I expect you would imagine.

What distinguishes an "Obnoxious Boy Wizard" from "Harry Potter?" Is it just the name, or is it something more than that? Can you describe other differences between an "Obnoxious Boy Wizard" and "Harry Potter?" What if the "Obnoxious Boy Wizard" was wearing glasses? What if he had a lightning scar? What if he had both? When does he stop being an "Obnoxious Boy Wizard" and start being "Harry Potter?" What constitutes an image of "Harry Potter?" How do we know what that is? Is it a Daniel Radcliffe in his Harry Potter wardrobe? Is it the cover art from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows? Is it the written description of "Harry Potter" in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets? Who owns the rights to images of Daniel Radcliffe in his Harry Potter wardrobe? Daniel Radcliffe? J. K. Rowling? Warner Bros. Studios? The artist that designed the wardrobe? The artist that sewed the wardrobe? The production designer? If I take an action figure of a brown-haired, Caucasian, boy in shorts and a t-shirt that's wearing round glasses and draw a lightning scar on its forehead, have I created a derivative work? Is my not Obnoxious, not Wizard, Boy action figure now suddenly an "Obnoxious Boy Wizard?" If so, what would that mean for every other artist in the world? If not, what would that mean for every artist in the world?

When does protecting my rights begin to violate the inherent rights of those around me? That's the most important question, isn't it? That's a question embedded in the laws of most societies predicated upon fundamental human rights. It's certainly a question inherent in the US copyright code. But is it an easy question to answer? Absolutely not. Is it a question whose answer(s) are constantly challenged by new sets of circumstances? Absolutely.

I agree with others that the only significant thing to say in this thread is that if Games Workshop is right, it could make the models; and if Games Workshop is wrong, it could make the models.

Saldiven wrote:

plastictrees wrote:The auto industry is still a terrible analogy for this whole situation, especially when were talking about companies producing models that GW has created rules for but not models for.

Merchandising for books seems much more apt. Want to produce an Obnoxious Boy Wizard action figure? Go nuts. Want to produce a Harry Potter action figure? You're going to have problems.

The reason I bring up the automobile industry is because of how those after-market parts suppliers market their items. If you do a search for Mustang conversion kits, you will see something like this:

Body kit for a 1980 Ford Mustang GT.

You will not see something like this:

Body Kit for a 1980 year model popular US automaker's horse named grand touring vehicle.

Many people believe that companies like CHS should market their goods similarly to the second, more absurd example.

I don't think that is comparable, and same applies to gun industry aftermarket parts. Aftermarket manufacturers' don't copy IP of the 'origin company' such as distinctive shaping (if they do they can get into trouble, just like Chapterhouse. Armalite, for example, has sued smaller manufacturers for IP infringements, ie. producing guns which are too similar to Armalite's own products). They do use trademarked product names, because that counts as nominative use (similar to 'fair use') and marketing of the product would be impossible without. A copyright or trademarked product name does not mean total and complete control over the word - otherwise fruit vendors would have to come up with a new name for apples.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use

The nominative use test essentially states that one party may use or refer to the trademark of another if:

1. The product or service cannot be readily identified without using the trademark (e.g. trademark is descriptive of a person, place, or product attribute).
2. The user only uses as much of the mark as is necessary for the identification (e.g. the words but not the font or symbol).
3. The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. This applies even if the nominative use is commercial, and the same test applies for metatags.


Iin CH case, it's probably 2) where the problem lies, or at least GW sees it that way.
If you take a look at say, Army Painter's website, they do use GW's product names to describe applications of their paints (and they make no secret of the fact that they are mimicking Citadel paints). However actual product names don't use GW's IP. This will probably qualify for bare minimum as described in Nominative Use. It's a line in the sand.

Janthkin wrote:The bolded part is my concern. We have this persistent rumor, based solely on StraightSilver's comments on a discussion over a pint with some unnamed person. From that, posters are creating negative opinions of Chapterhouse, when there is NO legal rationale to justify the concern StraightSilver mentions.

If I was paranoid, it would look like a astroturf smearing campaign directed at CH, since the lawsuit by GW isn't going so hot.

I'm with Janth. This whole things seems plausible, but not logical.

Kroothawk wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:I am willing to bet very good money that GW lawyers have a better understanding of IP than 99.9% of people who post here.

Then explain why GW lawyers charged Paulson Games for a Chapterhouse sculpt, when both companies have no connection at all and the correct sculptor is mentioned on every photo. And why GW lawyers can't even file a formally correct accusation since December 2010.

fullheadofhair's comment is probably true. Dakka has like 40,000 registered users. 40 people knowing more than GW lawyers about IP might be a good ballpark estimate. I think I could reliably name at least 10.

weeble1000 wrote:

plastictrees wrote:The auto industry is still a terrible analogy for this whole situation, especially when were talking about companies producing models that GW has created rules for but not models for.

Merchandising for books seems much more apt. Want to produce an Obnoxious Boy Wizard action figure? Go nuts. Want to produce a Harry Potter action figure? You're going to have problems.

And why is that, specifically? Why are third parties denied rights to create, market, and sell a Harry Potter action figure? There's an answer, but it is far from as simple as I expect you would imagine.

Well, part of the answer is simple: right to produce Harry Potter action figures was bought by Mattel, then subsesquently NECA. Of course, going to case of more generic "Obnoxious Boy Wizard" it does become more complex, as demonstrated by Harry Potter vs Tanya Grotter -lawsuit.

$pider wrote:You could easily argue that Chapterhouse is killing creativity by offering an easy answer to converting current GW kits.

GW kill creativity by making models. They should just give you a ball of putty and tell you to get on with it.

Actually, I've long been a critic of GW's propensity to provide rules without an accompanying figure... so if this is an off-shoot of the legal battle... I'm all for it!

So where's the actual evidence for any of this then? Before getting any more excited.

Howard A Treesong wrote:So where's the actual evidence for any of this then? Before getting any more excited.

What evidence do you usually expect of a rumour, esp. of one on an internal policy change?

We have:
A source that has been spot on before.
A recent release fitting exactly the pattern.
An expected Tyranid second wave that hasn't materialized yet.
An official hint of a new Tyranid monster with WD rules, when half the existing units of the Codex don't have a model.
Plus our knowledge of GW higher management mentality and GW lawyer competence

All this makes sense to me (that is that GW is thinking that way, not that GW's thinking fits reality ).

Heres what I love about the whole thing:
If GW would have just put out all the models that their codex creators put in the books instead of playing games, pussy-footin around, and releasing only little bits at a time, then maybe complimentary companies wouldn't be having as big of an impact on the greedy mammoth as they are.