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.

nkelsch wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:



All of these tanks have strong resemblances to aspects of the Baneblade.

Not really. They look no more similar to each other than a VW bug does to a mini cooper just because they are both small cars with headlights.

If you are saying there is almost no distinguishable design between these 3 tanks, the EA tank and the baneblade, it is extremely clear the EA tank is directly based of the exact design of the the armor cast baneblade and not a 'happy coincidence' of generic tank designs.

None of them even have a passive resemblance to the trapezoid turrets, the type of armor plating, location of things, number of turrets, design of turrets, Placement of turrets and so on.

An argument that it isn't a baneblade and never originated from a baneblade is not reasonable. It isn't like the resemblence between a GW rhino and generic real life APCs.

What I'm saying is that GW copied the Baneblade off a bunch of historical designs and EA copied their tank off a similar bunch of historical designs.

Kilkrazy wrote:
What I'm saying is that GW copied the Baneblade off a bunch of historical designs and EA copied their tank off a similar bunch of historical designs.

In this situation, that is bogus because there is no way two companies would have come to so exact a duplicate design that are so different from historical designs. I know some people wish to never see GW might be correct but that is clearly a baneblade and not a generic historical super heavy 75 tonne tank.

There is too much suspension of disbelief to believe this is a legitimately independent created design. It is a direct electronic duplication of the physical model.

Kilkrazy wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:



All of these tanks have strong resemblances to aspects of the Baneblade.

Not really. They look no more similar to each other than a VW bug does to a mini cooper just because they are both small cars with headlights.

If you are saying there is almost no distinguishable design between these 3 tanks, the EA tank and the baneblade, it is extremely clear the EA tank is directly based of the exact design of the the armor cast baneblade and not a 'happy coincidence' of generic tank designs.

None of them even have a passive resemblance to the trapezoid turrets, the type of armor plating, location of things, number of turrets, design of turrets, Placement of turrets and so on.

An argument that it isn't a baneblade and never originated from a baneblade is not reasonable. It isn't like the resemblence between a GW rhino and generic real life APCs.

What I'm saying is that GW copied the Baneblade off a bunch of historical designs and EA copied their tank off a similar bunch of historical designs.

They are almost identical. The suggestion that two companies independently came to such a similar design based on a wide range of historical material seems unlikely. It's clear that one was copied from the other, the parallel evolution argument is a bit improbable.

Whether GW could actually make anything out of it is a different matter, given their difficulties with chapterhouse it's probably not worth their time or money.

Howard A Treesong wrote:it's probably not worth their time or money.

Likewise, GW has shown their incompetence in the matter with poking Raging Heroes for funsies and failing against Chapterhouse. It's free-pickings season for GW's IP and there's nothing Tom Kirby can do to stop it.

this petition is useless. its a fan asking for an apology letter and potentially opening the door for litigation.

if GW hasn't filed a lawsuit, then EA isn't gonna do squat.

Grimtuff wrote:Heh, seems to be all the rage these days. Some game on FB was doing the same with the TK range.
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?330454-Facebook-games-are-stealing-Concept-art-from-GW!&highlight=tomb+kings+facebook

A few months back, there was a thread on the PP boards about a FB game using art depicting a slightly altered Man-o-War. This is absolutely nothing new regarding FB games.

Howard A Treesong wrote:The armorcast baneblade like many armorcast things of that time is just upscaled from the Epic model, so I think GW would own the design now, Armorcast weren't really given much room to be creative with the designs beyond their Epic equivalents.

The first Armorcast Baneblade model was based on the original White Dwarf DIY Baneblade article as well as the Epic model.
Copyright info on the models stated "Copyright 199x Games Workshop". Armorcast never owned the copyright on any of the GW models we produced. The models were produced under a license from Game Workshop that allowed us to us GW copyrighted stuff.

Tim

If GW does not try to enforce its copyright in this instance it says a whole lot about GW. In my opinion they are interested in defending their IP so that they can limit the other miniatures and accessories on the market, and thus 'encourage' us to buy whatever they happen to produce, including 41 dollar elite infantry and squads with only one special weapon per box.

Howard A Treesong wrote:To the OP, I don't get it. Is it basically some whiteknight swooping in to defend GW IP and starting a petition for GW to sue EA? Why does the person care enough to do this? Why does it matter?

Seems to be the epitome of white knighting.

Independent creation and scope of copyright are two different legal issues.

I think it is fair to say that the scope of the copyright inherent in the unregistered "Baneblade" work is relatively narrow given several factors such as elements drawn from public domain sources, functional elements, and elements inherent to the concept.

Independent creation is simply an affirmative defense rebutting an inference of access. You can't copy something unless you have access to it. Even so, I think rebutting access would be difficult in this instance, but theoretically possible.

As narrow as the "Baneblade" copyright may be, it would be limited to the those elements of the work that are original. Copyright only exists in original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. The relevant question would be, taking the two works side by side, would you find that the accused work unfairly appropriates that which is original in the "Baneblade" copyright?

Is that the case? Maybe, maybe not. But it is not necessarily a cut and dry issue. This is because, as nkelsch has made an effort to point out, the question of substantial similarity does not really involve the so-called "ordinary observer" test. Under Atari, the observer is more than ordinary because the hypothetical observer must be aware of the scope of the copyright, and take that into account.

Just wait kids, right when the 40k MMO comes out Blizzard is making Titan, their own distant future MMO.

To keep this from happening more, they must defend their copyright.

nectarprime wrote:To keep this from happening more, they must defend their copyright.

Again, how?

You're suggesting that GW go up against companies like EA and Activision Blizzard? You do realize this'll do nothing more than drive GW into the gr-

Hang on. Wait. I've been seeing this all wrong. We should totally help this petition!*

*Disclaimer: No, we shouldn't. And you're a complete feth-wit.

Just out of interest how does copywrite work in the car world a lot of the euro-boxes coming out these days all look similar yet no one is screaming copyright infringement

infinite_array wrote:

nectarprime wrote:To keep this from happening more, they must defend their copyright.

Again, how?

You're suggesting that GW go up against companies like EA and Activision Blizzard? You do realize this'll do nothing more than drive GW into the gr-

Hang on. Wait. I've been seeing this all wrong. We should totally help this petition!*

*Disclaimer: No, we shouldn't. And you're a complete feth-wit.

GW should sue Ebay too!

nectarprime wrote:To keep this from happening more, they must defend their copyright.

Why must they defend it? Does it matter in this case? Assuming they would be guaranteed a win, are GW actually affected by this that it's worth taking on a huge company to stop them using a single thing that looks like their baneblade? It's not as though EA are producing a range if toys based on their design that could conflict with GW sales.

nkelsch wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

nectarprime wrote:https://www.change.org/petitions/electronic-arts-inc-acknowledge-copyright-infringement-and-pay-necessary-compensation

Its a fething tank. Get over it.

GW does not own copyright on tanks.

Sorry, it is very much clearly a baneblamde which I can find no real life tank which even remotley resembles a baneblade. So they are perfectly able to own a copyright on 'tanks' if those tanks are uniqley theirs which a large number of GW's tanks are.

It does look like baneblade, but Im sure what he meant was, GW sure have thick skin to accuse others of infringing when they infringes almost everything else.
eg WW 1+2 tanks he was talking about.

Subject: EA infringes GW copyright

My reply. Prove in court, otherwise all of this is a mute point.

Adam LongWalker wrote:

Subject: EA infringes GW copyright

My reply. Prove in court, otherwise all of this is a mute point.

MOOT, not mute.

Also, to get REALLY technical, if it goes to court, it really is a moot point.

fixed

An online petition seems like the wrong way to go about this. Who actually listens to those anyhow?

Well, I've just figured out the joke in all of this -

Baneblade and Bonecruncher - Epic: Armageddon

Bombard and Grinder - Electronic Arts

E.A.

/thread

Platuan4th wrote:

Adam LongWalker wrote:

Subject: EA infringes GW copyright

My reply. Prove in court, otherwise all of this is a mute point.

MOOT, not mute.

Also, to get REALLY technical, if it goes to court, it really is a moot point.

Keep forgetting age group and slang terms. And yes I know what Moot point means.

Mute point is something I remember in the late 70's early 80's as an term to be used in reference to "tuning out of a subject with your remote control" because that subject is not longer worth the time to deal with.

I should have also should have added about whom('s) I was referring too when I stated "Mute point". That statement should have commented on this topic as well.

GW can take care of itself and its "Works". Having someone trying to post a URL on a protest to sign up people is a waste of pixels. Do we know if GW was informed about the material before hand? Perhaps they given the okay to use it.

We do not know all of the tangents of this. Only EA and GW does.

wow...Is that real nectarprime? That is astounding. If someone is looking to raise a fit over potential copyright infringement, that is a worthy focus of such attention.

weeble1000 wrote:wow...Is that real nectarprime? That is astounding. If someone is looking to raise a fit over potential copyright infringement, that is a worthy focus of such attention.

I am floored. Can anyone now continue to claim that the forgotten tanks are independent creationism based off historical examples and are not direct 1 for 1 electronic copies of physical copyrighted GW models?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day and sometimes people legitimately infringe on GW properties.

you are all asuming GW has not given the go ahead to EA for this, how do you all know EA didnt write GW a letter and say
"Hey, you know that company thats going under and has the rights to your games? well check this out and think what a multi-million $ company like EA can do for you!"

Also fun fact guys, it seems that the only reason this topic keeps popping up on Dakka and Warseer and other sites again TWO WEEKS later is that it's front-page on Reddit.

Congrats GW White Knights!

Formosa wrote:you are all asuming GW has not given the go ahead to EA for this, how do you all know EA didnt write GW a letter and say
"Hey, you know that company thats going under and has the rights to your games? well check this out and think what a multi-million $ company like EA can do for you!"

Because EA already has the Command and Conquer franchise to drive into the ground further. Marinehammer 40k can wait its turn.

Absolutionis wrote:Also fun fact guys, it seems that the only reason this topic keeps popping up on Dakka and Warseer and other sites again TWO WEEKS later is that it's front-page on Reddit.

Congrats GW White Knights!

Formosa wrote:you are all asuming GW has not given the go ahead to EA for this, how do you all know EA didnt write GW a letter and say
"Hey, you know that company thats going under and has the rights to your games? well check this out and think what a multi-million $ company like EA can do for you!"

Because EA already has the Command and Conquer franchise to drive into the ground further. Marinehammer 40k can wait its turn.

CnC was a naff franchise anyway, it has always been outclassed by better games that were not marketed as well ala BF vs CoD (let you lot decide that hot topic lol), I do admit the the Westwood ones were ok, but not compared to Total annilation and the like, and suppreme commander beats the pants off any of the newer CnC games

Formosa wrote:you are all asuming GW has not given the go ahead to EA for this, how do you all know EA didnt write GW a letter and say
"Hey, you know that company thats going under and has the rights to your games? well check this out and think what a multi-million $ company like EA can do for you!"

Again, it's a browser game. Stealing someone's designs and sticking them in a browser game to impress them is like if one if those surprise renovation shows managed to burn the house down. On purpose.

Absolutionis wrote:Congrats GW White Knights!

I'm no white knight, and if that Grinder picture above is real, then GW need to step in. This is EA just taking GW's stuff wholesale and claiming it as their own.