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.

nareik wrote:
@paulson games: Like how 'fake' lego claims it is 'compatible with all major miniature building block brands' or whatever?

Yes it'd be similar, although there are a few differences with the Lego situation. Lego had a patent on the way their blocks interlocked which lapsed due to them not re-filing in time so that now allows other companies to use the same mechanical design. (none of GW's items are protected by patents)

Despite the patent becoming public, 3rd party companies still cannot use the Lego logo or the Lego name in their advertising as those are covered under trademarks, they can refer to their items as being compatible or interchangeable with Lego block type products, but cannot claim they are specifically "Legos"

See, if the wording is incorrect, that seems like the kind of thing that could be sorted out with a quick email rather than using DMCA to nuke someone's product line.

Thanks Paulson.


I'd usually side against GW with this sort of a case (Raging Heroes should be able to sell their Lamasu heads, etc).

But Pop's designs look like they were copied from the transfer sheet, and he advertised them using Games Workshop chapter names (on facebook and twitter)..

There's got to be a line somewhere where it isn't ok for people to do this -no matter how big the corporation, or even their history with unscrupulous C&D letters.

 Yodhrin wrote:
See, if the wording is incorrect, that seems like the kind of thing that could be sorted out with a quick email rather than using DMCA to nuke someone's product line.

They have to nuke products on occasion as to make sure they have records of protecting their ip. its pretty standard procedure even if it hurts other businesses.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Thanks Paulson.


I'd usually side against GW with this sort of a case (Raging Heroes should be able to sell their Lamasu heads, etc).

But Pop's designs look like they were copied from the transfer sheet, and he advertised them using Games Workshop chapter names (on facebook and twitter)..

There's got to be a line somewhere where it isn't ok for people to do this -no matter how big the corporation, or even their history with unscrupulous C&D letters.

IIRC, when Blight Wheel had their promo mini nuked by GW Legal a few years back, better, more knowledgeable legal minds than mine said that one cannot use a 2D representation of something to claim ownership over a 3D version.

Therefore, assuming that's correct, making 3D sculpted versions based on 2D art doesn't cross a clearly established line.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Desubot wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
See, if the wording is incorrect, that seems like the kind of thing that could be sorted out with a quick email rather than using DMCA to nuke someone's product line.

They have to nuke products on occasion as to make sure they have records of protecting their ip. its pretty standard procedure even if it hurts other businesses.

I'm pretty sure they just need to show they're actively using it, otherwise how would companies who'd gone x amount of time with nobody else doing something that could even be vaguely considered encroaching on their IP be able to defend themselves if another party suddenly did?

Here's a little inside baseball for you as to why PgtM didn't receive any warning or even the courtesy of a C&D; Shapeways has been doing resin printing and production for Forge World.

No doubt they received "a word in their ear" and "friendly encouragement" to do things quietly lest they be caught in another CH-style quagmire.

As long as his work was his own and all his designs were of non-trademarked or copywriter and registered origins (no matter how loudly or often GW says it, they do not and never will own any sort of heraldic device, arrow, numeral, tribal design, et. al.) GW really wouldn't have standing.

The only way to beat the CH case was to keep the defendant from being able to make his appeal. GW had an affirmative defense but lost on 75% of their initial claims, something which would make them gun shy about openly pursuing another similar case.

Azrael, is that why the plastic Custodes are not accurate to the art--because some other company was first with the 3D representation of the 2D artwork, and GW could then be sued for infringement if they made their own 3D interpretation of the Custodes' 2D art?

No idea, like I say I just remember Blight Wheel getting C+D'd for some monster they'd sculpted as a con exclusive based on some old GW art, and someone (I don't remember who, but clearly felt they had grounds to be knowledgeable) explaining that 2D-3D transitions weren't enforceable.

I mean, it makes sense, it takes a different set of skills, and there's no way you can confuse a miniature for a pencil sketch!

Here's the thread,

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/521534.page

Although it appears from my first response I was already under this impression from before, so feck knows where I got the idea now!

It was evidently weeble (a trial consultant so very well informed on the law) who I was remembering, essentiallly the TLDR is "it depends, ask the judge when you get to court." Also, I miss Brylcreem, he was spectacularly odd in his opinions, I wonder where he is now?

In the US simply changing the format between 2d to 3d isn't enough to be considered a unique work. There is a legal landmark set for this in the Roger v Koons case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons) that involved a photograph being used as a reference to build a sculpture, the court ruled that the sculpture was in fact derivative of the original photo and had not been changed enough for it to be considered to be it's own unique creation. It now serves as a part of IP case law and had also been referred to in the GW v CH case as some of the CH items were based on drawings and artwork that GW had published (but never made models for).

During the CH/GW case the ownership of a lot of art published by GW was in question since GW had used a number of freelance artist back in their start up days and they didn't have a written contract to prove if GW or the individual artist owned the images. Attacking the chain of ownership was a round about way for CH's defense to defeat the claim as opposed to claiming the translation from 2d to 3d making it unique as they would have lost on that effort.

Other countries may have a different laws in place but in the US you can't make a sculpture or other 3d object directly based on a drawing or photo. You always need to make enough changes to it that it's considered to be a unique work that stands on it's own.

That's probably another reason GW's art recently basically became drawings of their models - past art was different enough that I think a sculpt would have enough changes to not be considered derivative in many cases.

 paulson games wrote:
In the US simply changing the format between 2d to 3d isn't enough to be considered a unique work. There is a legal landmark set for this in the Roger v Koons case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Koons) that involved a photograph being used as a reference to build a sculpture, the court ruled that the sculpture was in fact derivative of the original photo and had not been changed enough for it to be considered to be it's own unique creation. It now serves as a part of IP case law and had also been referred to in the GW v CH case as some of the CH items were based on drawings and artwork that GW had published.

During the CH/GW case the ownership of that art was in question since GW had used a number of freelance artist back in their start up days and they didn't have a written contract to prove if GW or the individual artist owned the images. Chain of ownership was a round about way for CH's defense to defeat the claim as opposed to challenging the translation from 2d to 3d making it unique as they would have lost that.

Other countries may have a different laws in place but in the US you can't make a sculpture or other 3d object directly based on a drawing or photo. You always need to make enough changes to it that it's considered to be a unique work that stands on it's own.

If you read the thread I linked, you'll see that RogersvKoons isn't necessarily a cut and dried answer to the transition of medium question. Essentially it seems transition of medium is an insulation from successful prosecution, but not necessarily an immunity.

Sounds like Pop needs to sculpt up a couple "space paladins" that go with his parts and do a bit or relabeling.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No idea, like I say I just remember Blight Wheel getting C+D'd for some monster they'd sculpted as a con exclusive based on some old GW art, and someone (I don't remember who, but clearly felt they had grounds to be knowledgeable) explaining that 2D-3D transitions weren't enforceable.

I mean, it makes sense, it takes a different set of skills, and there's no way you can confuse a miniature for a pencil sketch!

Here's the thread,

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/521534.page

Although it appears from my first response I was already under this impression from before, so feck knows where I got the idea now!

It was evidently weeble (a trial consultant so very well informed on the law) who I was remembering, essentiallly the TLDR is "it depends, ask the judge when you get to court." Also, I miss Brylcreem, he was spectacularly odd in his opinions, I wonder where he is now?

For that kind of thing, we don't have anymore artwork that isn't a literal representation of a already existing miniature...

I'm not going to wade through 13 pages of thread to try and figure out which exact part you are referencing. But I will agree with the idea that IP case law isn't always a cut and dried situation, some cases that are decided one way might have an opposite conclusion if tried in a different court with a different judge or jury. Nothing with IP Law is ever air tight, however most cases will refer back to previous trials and established legal precedents and tend to side with those.

The Koons case established that changing the media format is not enough protection on it's own, you still need to take additional steps beyond that to make something considered unique.
(some people had posted suggesting that a 2d to 3d format change is enough protection, which is counter to what past legal cases have shown)

Koons also tried to use Fair Use as a cover all defense like CH was trying to claim, and was proven to be outside the boundry of what Fair Use actually protects. CH lost a good number of their fair use defense claims and got hammered on those because of how they were using GW names combined with CH products.

Neither did I, it's very near the start.

Specifically..

weeble1000 wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
Isn't it already established that IP infringement can't cross mediums? So a 3D sculpt of a 2D artwork is not an issue?

No. If that was true, why would anyone ever produce licensed films or merchandise, when you could just make it without giving the creator anything?

For example, here's a sculpture by Jeff Koons that was found to infringe the IP of a photographer.

Watch out for the Rogers v Koons case. It was mainly a case of fair use as there was rare direct evidence of copying, and what amounted to a virtual admission of copying by the defendant. Also, the sculpture attempted to replicate the photograph in all details in which it was possible, so viewing the sculpture was essentially viewing the same people at the same angle as the photograph was taken.

When you are talking about what makes a photograph 'art', framing, staging, lighting, focus, basically all of the elements that con be manipulated potentially create protected expression. The subject itself is often not protectable. Koons replicated, or sought to replicate, those types of details. It was not that the people in the sculpture looked the same, but that the sculpture replicated the framing, positioning of the subjects, and so forth. In fact, the sculpture barely looked like a sculpture. So again, in copyright cases one is dealing with very fact dependent issues.

The case was decided on summary judgment and is a decision that remains hotly debated today.

Further, the Koons case has been cited by Plaintiff counsel in the GW v CHS case, to not terribly significant impact. A far more apt case would be FASA v Playmate.

Remember kids! White Dwarf thinks that everyone loses from overly strict enforcement of copyright!

I'll tell you what did happen a few months back in another Shapeways incident.

There were a lot, a LOT of star trek ships on there, lots of really nice stuff, which many of us were using to rescale attack wing fleets to something more appropriate. Then, one by one, they started getting shut down, firstly by a few ships being taken off their page, then entire sculptors shops vanishing.

As I recall, it was stated then that Shapeways basically will target anyone who gets a half arsed report submitted about them as it's easier to kneejerk delete the design than bother to work out who's right or wrong.

And then, many of us started to notice there was one already fairly large fish in the pond who just kept getting bigger, and eventually ended up the largest ship design shop of all by a country mile.

Several designers/shop owners remain convinced he (/she or it) was the actual cause of reports, not Paramount or any other actual IP owner... but just one of the shop owners sabotaging his competition. He is still there and has certainly branched out considerably since I last looked. His 'shipyards' got a lot larger.

I don't think GW would be overly fussed about this tbh and have backed right off of dropping the IP sledgehammer all over the place like legal wack-a-mole of late (as though, perhaps, the instigating IP/legal force had left the building and noone else quite saw the Merrett in pursuing squabbling lawsuits when there was a business to run instead...). The Chapterhouse debacle likely left a very sour taste in the mouth back in Nottingham.

I have to admit my first thought on reading the thread was some disgruntled White Knight or perhaps the competition, but I was under the impression you had to be the owner of the IP in question to file any sort of grievence.

If that's not the case, then I think that's far more likely than GW themselves at this point.

 Galas wrote:
For that kind of thing, we don't have anymore artwork that isn't a literal representation of a already existing miniature...

Another one of the 'be careful what you wish for' outcomes of the Chapterhouse debacle.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'll tell you what did happen a few months back in another Shapeways incident.

There were a lot, a LOT of star trek ships on there, lots of really nice stuff, which many of us were using to rescale attack wing fleets to something more appropriate. Then, one by one, they started getting shut down, firstly by a few ships being taken off their page, then entire sculptors shops vanishing.

As I recall, it was stated then that Shapeways basically will target anyone who gets a half arsed report submitted about them as it's easier to kneejerk delete the design than bother to work out who's right or wrong.

And then, many of us started to notice there was one already fairly large fish in the pond who just kept getting bigger, and eventually ended up the largest ship design shop of all by a country mile.

Several designers/shop owners remain convinced he (/she or it) was the actual cause of reports, not Paramount or any other actual IP owner... but just one of the shop owners sabotaging his competition. He is still there and has certainly branched out considerably since I last looked. His 'shipyards' got a lot larger.

I don't think GW would be overly fussed about this tbh and have backed right off of dropping the IP sledgehammer all over the place like legal wack-a-mole of late (as though, perhaps, the instigating IP/legal force had left the building and noone else quite saw the Merrett in pursuing squabbling lawsuits when there was a business to run instead...). The Chapterhouse debacle likely left a very sour taste in the mouth back in Nottingham.

This makes sense. It is also in line with my knowledge about the partnership that FW has with Shapeways.

I could see Shapeways using its power to limit the competition, and it is their very own platform so they are within their rights to limit or reject projects that might encroach on their own interests.

xraytango wrote:
Shapeways has been doing resin printing and production for Forge World.

I doubt that very seriously. What's your source?

 Ketara wrote:
Remember kids! White Dwarf thinks that everyone loses from overly strict enforcement of copyright!

Spoiler:

In my opinion there is a difference.

The context of that article is a frustrated games/figure developer lamenting a movie merchandise was unwilling to license their IP to a different / niche market.

What is happening in the OP is that POP goes the MONKEY has been creating uninnovative 40k pieces (that compete with citadel) without even a pretention of wanting/trying to obtain a license.


The gripe in the picture is IP holders not capitalising their IP by refusing to license to other markets, ergo everyone loses. What is happening in the OP is someone making copycat product, without license within the same market.

I'm not saying GW is right in what it might have done, but I am saying you are creating a false equivalency and misrepresenting the message of the article.

nareik wrote:
@paulson games: Like how 'fake' lego claims it is 'compatible with all major miniature building block brands' or whatever?

It may be legal... but god do I hate all those fake legos.

I also hate lego quality going down the drain.

In my time ....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, about IP in general: the law isn't fair to copyright holders.

Think about GW: they came at a time when there was nothing comparable to WH or WH40K, they built stores to educate the market, they sold their products there, a market was created, people started buying GW specialist games, then non-GW games, and all of a sudden, most of the people benefiting from GW's initial effort, were not GW.

No matter how you slice it, if someone so much as makes a model for 40K, following the same design guidelines as GW's models, they should in all fairness pay something to GW, who created their target market (people interested in 40k-esque miniatures).

Unfortunately, regulations are too lax, as the ChapterHouse case proved: it makes zero sense that CH would be able to run a business based strictly on providing 40k-esque miniatures to 40k customers.

This is essentially leeching, which I personally do not find acceptable.

Kings of War was created to sell cheap drop-in replacement to GW's WHFB range, and was mostly financially viable thanks to that exact idea.

In order to somewhat dodge the impending IP claim, they made up a two page ruleset to say they were "selling a game" and did not "intend" to sell alternative miniatures for somebody else's game.

While it certainly is legal, I find it is unfair and takes money away from the people who created it all, the people we have to thank for creating and sharing this hobby with us, whoever they are.

I think many people who find GW too cash-grabb-y lack the experience of starting a business, facing a ton of hardships and investing a lot of yourself for years, only to see others profit from your investment.

I think nobody wants to be leeched of their energy, and I think the general public doesn't want company starters to feel demotivated because they're getting leeched.

In the end, whoever GW is, they are the people who brought us WHFB and 40K, they are the people who made me dream about Eldar miniatures, and I totally enjoyed those experiences.

So what you're saying is that GW should pay all of the people who own the IPs they blatantly ripped off to create their universe. They should pay Heinlein's heirs for creating the demand for space marines, Sylvester Stallone for creating the demand for "Rambo in space" Catachans (complete with thinly-veiled Rambo special character), Tolkein's heirs for creating the demand for 90% of WHFB, etc. I mean, we're just talking about fairness here...

@Morgoth I really cannot shed any tears for a company that made a melange of Tolkein and Moorcock and called it a fantasy world. And then added Frank Herbert and Heinlein to create a science fiction world.

I have about as much sympathy for them as I do for TSR/WoC trying to protect their 'original' IP.

I think it was the 2nd edition Chaos Codex where the author used the quote 'If I have seen far it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants'. The intros to Rogue Trader listed off influences including Star Wars and threw in Sherlock Obi-Won Clouseeu as an Inquisitor.

If 3rd party producers should pay up, GW owes a lot of money further upstream.

Copyright does NOT protect ideas or styles it protects specific executions of ideas.

I have no love for recasters or internet pirates, but if someone writes a story about the Space Empire of the 401st Century or sculpts their own Space Elf model they're building on what others have done to make their own creation just like every writer and artist in history had done.

I agree with the idea that copyright law is failing. For different reasons though.

I don't think it is right that an artist can do a sketch for a sculpture but copyright law then gives the protection of the sculpture to a different sculptor because (s)he saw the sketch and made a copy before the original was completed.

However, I don't think it is correct to say GW did all the ground work. They started off selling chessboards, dungeons and dragons paraphernalia and so on. They used this as a vehicle for selling miniatures, then eventually the miniatures they sold became a vehicle for selling their own wargames (and yet more miniatures).

GW might have developed the market (and continue to benefit from that), but when a farmer scatters a few seeds outside his boundaries he can't expect to take a cut of the harvest from his neighbours fields too.

edit: And as it happens, many of the farmers owning the fields surrounding GW's are ex-GW employees. These ex-employees were the ones who supplied the grain to begin with!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I don't think GW would be overly fussed about this tbh and have backed right off of dropping the IP sledgehammer all over the place like legal wack-a-mole of late (as though, perhaps, the instigating IP/legal force had left the building and noone else quite saw the Merrett in pursuing squabbling lawsuits when there was a business to run instead...). The Chapterhouse debacle likely left a very sour taste in the mouth back in Nottingham.

Are we just going to skip over this doozy of a pun?

nareik wrote:
I don't think it is right that an artist can do a sketch for a sculpture but copyright law then gives the protection of the sculpture to a different sculptor because (s)he saw the sketch and made a copy before the original was completed.

But that's not really what is happening. The second sculptor isn't making an exact copy of the original design and replacing it, they're making a separate work of art that is an expression of the same original concept. For example, GW can make a sketch of a space elf with a spear and laser pistol, and anyone can take the general idea of "space elf with a spear and laser pistol" and make their own version. But GW can also make their own sculpt and sell it, they don't lose the rights to do so just because someone else beat them to it. The non-GW sculptor can't do anything to stop GW from selling theirs, unless GW is stupid enough to copy it too directly. The only way GW loses is if the customers prefer the non-GW "space elf with spear and laser pistol", and that's entirely GW's fault for producing an inferior product.

And remember, this is the same principle that gives you GW games at all. GW's IP is highly derivative of other IP, if you remove the ability to create your own version of a concept then GW would cease to exist.

 Ketara wrote:
Remember kids! White Dwarf thinks that everyone loses from overly strict enforcement of copyright!

My reading of that is less "we should be allowed to make all the Star Wars knockoffs we like" and more "20th Century Fox should be more willing to grant licences to small-market licencees". Plus it was written thirty years ago by someone who's had not connection with GW for 20 years.

 Taarnak wrote:

xraytango wrote:
Shapeways has been doing resin printing and production for Forge World.

I doubt that very seriously. What's your source?

Yeah I'm struggling with that suggestion, especially seeing as the studio has it's own 3d printer, capable of printing a warlord titan.