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.

Thing is, I can bet you that if I somehow came into a car tyre (note the y! Tyre, not tire. Sorry. Been getting on my wick!) manufacturing plant, and advertised them as Pirreli, Michelin, Firestone etc, I'd get my bollocks sued off faster than Lewis Hamilton crashes out a Grand Prix.

Hell, if I marketed them using brand names like Honda, Ferrari etc, and advertised them for specific models of car without the car manufacturers permission, I'd get my bollocks sued off faster than Lewis Hamilton crashes out a Grand Prix.

Mr Mystery wrote:Thing is, I can bet you that if I somehow came into a car tyre (note the y! Tyre, not tire. Sorry. Been getting on my wick!) manufacturing plant, and advertised them as Pirreli, Michelin, Firestone etc, I'd get my bollocks sued off faster than Lewis Hamilton crashes out a Grand Prix.

Hell, if I marketed them using brand names like Honda, Ferrari etc, and advertised them for specific models of car without the car manufacturers permission, I'd get my bollocks sued off faster than Lewis Hamilton crashes out a Grand Prix.

...But the flaw in your logic is this...

CH isnt claiming to be selling GW product.

They are selling items "for use with 'whatever' GW product"

Same as if you would buy an aftermarket part for your Ford Mustang that isnt sold anymore. (or yet as it were)

sourclams wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Greedy chancers?

CH are ramoras picking up scraps from the shark

I really don't understand the vitriol tbh.
GW won't go bust due to small producers like CH

I've got to agree with Chibi that I don't see the need for some of the venom that appears to be being directed at CH. As has been pointed out, they're exploiting a gap in the market, which is a very capitalist thing to do.

I'm not going to comment on the IP/copyright/trademark/etc side of things, as I don't understand the law. I must admit to liking the after-market modifications analogy, which I hadn't thought about before.

I do, however, think the market would be poorer if CH weren't around to offer the options that they do.

Right, to explain the vitriol.

You write a rulebook, and some background, even going so far as to develop artwork and create some models. Due to necessary budgetary contraints, you cannot release everything at once. So you plan it in waves. Then, as soon as it proves popular, some little scrote nips in and 'fills in the gaps' whilst you wait for the capital to do the next wave. This eats into your potential earnings from the next wave and indeed could pose a problem if the design you come up with is too similar to theirs, as they could indeed claim you've now ripped them off.

Is that, or is that not the act of a greedy little chancer purely on the make?

Brah, our entire economic system is based on Greed versus Fear (or lack of initiative) bound by Constraints (or lack of capacity).

You can argue that CH breaks the rule or breaks laws, or you can argue that GW is not affected by secondary market offerings. You can't argue that an entrepreneur is not expected to immediately cater to a demand pull if they are able to do so in an economically rational manner.

There is a massive difference between an entrepenuer exploiting a gap in the market (say, a new skirmish game involving Space Pirate complete with boarding actions) and coming up with an original product to fill the perceived niche, and ripping off another companies efforts and IP. This is part of the problem. The other part as stated before, is CH using GW IP to promote their wares. Stuff like Ymgarl, Genestealer, Space Wolf etc, all of which belong in this context to GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadshane1 wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Thing is, I can bet you that if I somehow came into a car tyre (note the y! Tyre, not tire. Sorry. Been getting on my wick!) manufacturing plant, and advertised them as Pirreli, Michelin, Firestone etc, I'd get my bollocks sued off faster than Lewis Hamilton crashes out a Grand Prix.

Hell, if I marketed them using brand names like Honda, Ferrari etc, and advertised them for specific models of car without the car manufacturers permission, I'd get my bollocks sued off faster than Lewis Hamilton crashes out a Grand Prix.

...But the flaw in your logic is this...

CH isnt claiming to be selling GW product.

They are selling items "for use with 'whatever' GW product"

Same as if you would buy an aftermarket part for your Ford Mustang that isnt sold anymore. (or yet as it were)

See the second part. From skim reading the document (legalese makes my head hurt) it would appear GW are concerned people are under the impression CH's stuff is somehow GW approved, all by their wilful use of GW copyrighted terms. Whether the court agrees or not of course remains to be seen, but CH do seem to have been treading on thin ice.

To stick with your analogy, there is a difference between advertising say, an exhaust (think you americans have a different word) for use on a Ford Mustang, and a Ford Mustang Exhaust. One is pretty much fair game I guess, the other is a potential breach of IP, as although both are designed to fit a particular model, neither is endorsed or reccomended by Ford.

Dysartes wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Greedy chancers?

CH are ramoras picking up scraps from the shark

I really don't understand the vitriol tbh.
GW won't go bust due to small producers like CH

I've got to agree with Chibi that I don't see the need for some of the venom that appears to be being directed at CH. As has been pointed out, they're exploiting a gap in the market, which is a very capitalist thing to do.

I'm not going to comment on the IP/copyright/trademark/etc side of things, as I don't understand the law. I must admit to liking the after-market modifications analogy, which I hadn't thought about before.

I do, however, think the market would be poorer if CH weren't around to offer the options that they do.

The Difference for me at least is how they go about it and how they conduct themselves on forums, compared to Micro Arts and other 3rd party sellers/fillers.

Taking the Piss with things is one thing, but being an ass about it is quite another.

I think GW and CH should just decide it on a 4+ like in the rulebook.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:GW sueing Chapterhouse seems A LOT to me as if they're going after one of these successful merc painters.

Perhaps they're next. Merc painters provide something that GW themselves do not, and they're basically using GW's IP in order to do it.

Maybe I'm off track though.

I really doubt they'll ever go after any of the painters, simply because that's someone offering a service rather than a product.

That's arguing semantics.

Er, no it's not? At least not in my view. A service is not necessarily a "product".

A paint job on a fully painted army is indeed a product. It's paint which is added to a GW model, just as CH's sculpted resin is added to a model.

The "army" is the product here, the painting is just a service. The painted army is also going to be a one-off thing, for all purposes, paid for by one particular customer.

I agree with you though, I don't see them going after the painters,but I sure wouldn't be surprised.

I would be, just because it's wholly unnecessary. It doesn't impact Forge World or GW's sales, in any way, shape, or form like "upgrade kits" potentially do.

There are a substantial amount of people who would like to read more novels about Harry Potter. What do you think would happen if someone besides J. K. Rowling started writing and publishing more Harry Potter novels?

That been done......Star War series

Deadshane...tried to add this to my post above, but the edit didn't stick.

To use your analogy of parts for a Ford Mustang.

Would you agree that there is a distinct difference between the following two adverts.

'We sell exhaust manifolds to fit a 1967 Ford Mustang'

'We sell 1967 Ford Mustang Exhaust Manifolds'

Now both here are exactly the same product. The first one isn't treading on IP toes, as it is merely a substitute part which fits a 1967 Ford Mustang. The second however, implies the part might be a genuine Ford Mustang Exhaust Manifold, or at least said part is endorsed by Ford. Assuming Ford have not endorsed either, the advertiser of the second example is looking at a trip to the IP courts yes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:That been done......Star War series

Yes...the expanded universe, which is licensed. Good analogy. Honest.

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:That been done......Star War series

Nope. I think you'l find all of that was licensed.

Wolfstan wrote:Oh forgot, what about Verlinden products? They are made to fit Tamiya kits and advertised as such.

That sounds a tempting argument but there are a few differences. GW models are fictional, they design them and own those designs. Someone like Chapterhouse make parts that are based on GW stuff and can pretty much only be used exclusively with GW models. They are riding on the IP exclusively owned and controlled by GW. Assuming that the claim that GW stand to lose their IP by not protecting it is true, it doesn't apply to Tamiya because they don't own the IP on the stuff they make models of.

Tamiya and Verlinden by comparison make models of real things. While Verlinden make aftermarket parts they suggest for use on certain kits they are not infringing on anything Tamiya have made. Both companies are making models of things that they don't own the rights on, that's why the same model is often released by several companies. Some companies like verlinden may suggest a specific manufacturer that their parts are best used on, others don't. The fact that the conversion kit is compatible is not really a basis for much of an infringement claim, basically Tamiya could only complain that verlinden are suggesting their brand in their instructions and making a historical model of a tank turret that happens to have a turret ring sized up to fit their kits rather than Dragon or HobbyBoss or something.

The other thing of course is that Tamiya probably see it as beneficial to their product and don't want to complain, and why would they? They don't own the rights to the shapes and names of the vehicles they make kits of and and more importantly they appreciate the conversion part of the hobby, if they release a tank and someone releases a alternate turret designed to fit it, some people will be encouraged to make a purchase to make that conversion where they wouldn't have bought a kit at all, and quite a lot of hobbyists will buy two Tamiya kits to build both!

Clearly GW don't see CH as being beneficial. Have people been encouraged to buy more Space Marines to use the CH parts? That can't be verified, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if GW have actually benefited from CH offering people the chance to make different chapters and vehicles which has led them to buy more GW products than they would have otherwise. Yeah CH have sold some shoulder pads and other bits and pieces, but GW have shifted a few boxes of models. I think it's a huge stretch for them to claim losses to CH. That would make the colossal assumption that money spent on CH products would have otherwise have gone to GW. But I don't think this is really about money, they are extremely possessive about their IP and don't like people going anywhere near it.

Mr Mystery wrote:Would you agree that there is a distinct difference between the following two adverts.

'We sell exhaust manifolds to fit a 1967 Ford Mustang'

'We sell 1967 Ford Mustang Exhaust Manifolds'

I get what you mean but I know this will drag us off topic. Try emphasizing the Harry Potter (or Star Wars) example.

Manchu wrote:There are a substantial amount of people who would like to read more novels about Harry Potter. What do you think would happen if someone besides J. K. Rowling started writing and publishing more Harry Potter novels?

Go here and type in "Harry Potter".

http://tess2.uspto.gov/

Then type in Tervigon

GW has not covered all of its bases.

Also, good points there Howard!

Deadshane1 wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Thing is, I can bet you that if I somehow came into a car tyre (note the y! Tyre, not tire. Sorry. Been getting on my wick!) manufacturing plant, and advertised them as Pirreli, Michelin, Firestone etc, I'd get my bollocks sued off faster than Lewis Hamilton crashes out a Grand Prix.

Hell, if I marketed them using brand names like Honda, Ferrari etc, and advertised them for specific models of car without the car manufacturers permission, I'd get my bollocks sued off faster than Lewis Hamilton crashes out a Grand Prix.

...But the flaw in your logic is this...

CH isnt claiming to be selling GW product.

They are selling items "for use with 'whatever' GW product"

Same as if you would buy an aftermarket part for your Ford Mustang that isnt sold anymore. (or yet as it were)

Couldn't we also apply the same thinking to this website
http://www.hubcaps.org/

right from the home page your shown all the brand names of cars and you just click on your merry way to select the hubcap that goes with tires for your ford....if we continue to use ford as an example would they be able so sue this website for the same reasons?

Branderic wrote:

Manchu wrote:There are a substantial amount of people who would like to read more novels about Harry Potter. What do you think would happen if someone besides J. K. Rowling started writing and publishing more Harry Potter novels?

Go here and type in "Harry Potter".

http://tess2.uspto.gov/

Then type in Tervigon

I'd say I don't understand what point you are making but I think we'd better start with you not understanding the point I'm making.

The Harry Potter books are protected by copyright laws. No matter how many people may want to read more Harry Potter books, no one can legally write them without the permission of the person/people who hold(s) the copyright.

Also, I guess I had better follow my colleagues and mention that I am a lawyer and NOTHING I ever publish on this website is EVER meant to be legal advice.

Mr Mystery wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:What established GW iconography does CH use?
That's a question, not a challenge to your statement.

Please understand, though, that I don't consider iron crosses, blood drops and Imperial Eagles to count, as GW simply lifted them from real-life sources.
What original iconography does CH use of GW's?

Eric

Salamanders, Space Wolves for two. Both pretty blatant rip offs. Also as mentioned earlier, I'd imagine a big problem CH could face is that GW could prove the shoulder pads/rhino doors they sell are not only derivative, but include original GW parts reproduced (as in original was sculpted on an actual GW Rhino door, and not a piece of plasticard cut to the same shape etc)

Thanks for giving specifics.

If you look at the comparative SW pieces, I think you'll see that there really is no copying there. is there similarity? Sure. That doesn't mean they're copies of GW iconography, just similar representations (in that they both use lupine images).
The Salamanders iconography is closer to GW but, again, if you look at the 2 side by side, you'll see that they use their own imagery, and not GW's.

Now, I don't deny that GW had the idea of "Salamander" Space Marines first. That would be silly of me. I do "argue," however, that their images are distinctly different.

As for the Rhino doors... well, I can't say what they DID do, but they've been pretty vocal in the past, stating that they didn't do that (there were accusations of this, when they first started producing doors). CH has stated openly that they copied the DIMENSIONS of the door, but that the blank that they worked from was their own creation.
FWIW...


Eric

Manchu wrote:I'd say I don't understand what point you are making but I think we'd better start with you not understanding the point I'm making.

The Harry Potter books are protected by copyright laws. No matter how many people may want to read more Harry Potter books, no one can legally write them without the permission of the person/people who hold(s) the copyright.

Also, I guess I had better follow my colleagues and mention that I am a lawyer and NOTHING I ever publish on this website is EVER meant to be legal advice.

There is a difference between copyright and trademarks.

Copyright says you can't reprint a Harry Potter book.

Trademark says you can't use the registered trademark Harry Potter(TM).

If Harry Potter weren't trademarked you could write a book about a wizard boy named Harry Potter.

Indeedy. It's up to GW to prove the work is intentionally derivative, which for my money won't be too hard given CH's insistence to advertise it as for a specific chapter etc.

Ultimately CH have the weaker hand here as I see it.

MagickalMemories wrote:If you look at the comparative SW pieces, I think you'll see that there really is no copying there. is there similarity? Sure. That doesn't mean they're copies of GW iconography, just similar representations (in that they both use lupine images). The Salamanders iconography is closer to GW but, again, if you look at the 2 side by side, you'll see that they use their own imagery, and not GW's.

How close is too close?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Branderic wrote:Copyright says you can't reprint a Harry Potter book.

That is only part of copyright protection.

Manchu wrote:There are a substantial amount of people who would like to read more novels about Harry Potter. What do you think would happen if someone besides J. K. Rowling started writing and publishing more Harry Potter novels?

When it comes to something like the publishing industry there is a huge wealth of precedent and dedicated legislation over ownership of documents and characters. It doesn't really apply to the wargames industry where there seems to be a lot of grey areas. It's telling that the analogies people are coming out with are things like ipods, car parts and books. All of these are pretty wide of setting a clear guide for how to treat wargames figures.

What would be closer is however they approach the toy industry. Because if we are talking about how joe public would be confused by Chapterhouse being licenced by GW then the fact is that these are 'toys'. How are people who make stuff to convert or supplement star wars figures for customisation treated? Any examples from those industries?

By the way, I'm not a legal expert of any kind. But I think it would help if all armchair lawyers read up a bit on the types of IP and got it straight what the differences are between 'copyright', 'trademarks' and 'patents' are. Because the terms are being thrown around willy nilly here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Branderic wrote:

Manchu wrote:I'd say I don't understand what point you are making but I think we'd better start with you not understanding the point I'm making.

The Harry Potter books are protected by copyright laws. No matter how many people may want to read more Harry Potter books, no one can legally write them without the permission of the person/people who hold(s) the copyright.

Also, I guess I had better follow my colleagues and mention that I am a lawyer and NOTHING I ever publish on this website is EVER meant to be legal advice.

There is a difference between copyright and trademarks.

Copyright says you can't reprint a Harry Potter book.

Trademark says you can't use the registered trademark Harry Potter(TM).

If Harry Potter weren't trademarked you could write a book about a wizard boy named Harry Potter.

not sure that's right. If I understand correctly (not entirely guaranteed) IP is an invioble right as soon as you publish/release/write something original. Trademarks however, you need to apply for. Thus as the Harry Potter books exist, you could not just write about a wizard boy named Harry Potter, as it is not your IP?

Mr Mystery wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Greedy chancers?

CH are ramoras picking up scraps from the shark

I really don't understand the vitriol tbh.
GW won't go bust due to small producers like CH

I've got to agree with Chibi that I don't see the need for some of the venom that appears to be being directed at CH. As has been pointed out, they're exploiting a gap in the market, which is a very capitalist thing to do.

I'm not going to comment on the IP/copyright/trademark/etc side of things, as I don't understand the law. I must admit to liking the after-market modifications analogy, which I hadn't thought about before.

I do, however, think the market would be poorer if CH weren't around to offer the options that they do.

Right, to explain the vitriol.

You write a rulebook, and some background, even going so far as to develop artwork and create some models. Due to necessary budgetary contraints, you cannot release everything at once. So you plan it in waves. Then, as soon as it proves popular, some little scrote nips in and 'fills in the gaps' whilst you wait for the capital to do the next wave. This eats into your potential earnings from the next wave and indeed could pose a problem if the design you come up with is too similar to theirs, as they could indeed claim you've now ripped them off.

Is that, or is that not the act of a greedy little chancer purely on the make?

How does this describe CH? Nothing they produce, with the exception of the spore pod and the superheavy vehicle kit, everything they produce requires GW parts in order to be used (and technically the spore pod does as well, although this is not as obvious). The spore pod kit they sell, unfortunately is labeled as such, and if they had thought it through they would have instead marketed it as 'large alien egg' or something to the effect, that can see use in a wide variety of different areas. The superheavy walker however, has absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely close to GW. There are no existing rules, artwork, or fluff descriptions of any sort for a Tau superheavy walker. In fact, this is contradictory to the established 40k fluff. The superheavy walker is something completely original and removed from any GW IP whatsoever, and is solely a product of Chapterhouse/the sculptor (which I suppose technically means that GW cannot produce their own similar walker kit for the Tau now, as they would risk lawsuit from CH, but thats just my uneducated guess as to whats going on). In any case, they aren't dirty little chancers, as you are still required to purchase things from GW in order to use the things you purchased from CH. Using the car analogy, this is perfectly legit, perfectly legal. Lots of car companies manufacture things for their own vehicles (like spoilers, etc.) which are also made by aftermarket producers. In the case of CH, they really aren't doing anything to 'eat into potential earnings from the next wave.' Instead what they are doing is allowing GW to raise the capital to create it's next wave. I can buy a Tervigon kit from Chapterhouse... but if I want to use it, I also have to purchase a Carnifex kit from GW. So while I might not purchase a Tervigon kit for 50 bucks from GW in the future, I did purchase a Carnifex kit from GW today.

MagickalMemories wrote:As for the Rhino doors... well, I can't say what they DID do, but they've been pretty vocal in the past, stating that they didn't do that (there were accusations of this, when they first started producing doors). CH has stated openly that they copied the DIMENSIONS of the door, but that the blank that they worked from was their own creation.

Their initial releases were just details sculpted onto doors from GW kits. When people pointed out that was going to land them in hot water, they switched to identically-sized custom doors.

Howard A Treesong wrote:When it comes to something like the publishing industry there is a huge wealth of precedent and dedicated legislation over ownership of documents and characters. It doesn't really apply to the wargames industry where there seems to be a lot of grey areas.

Think of them as sculptures and it becomes much more clear.

This is how I see Chapterhouse vs GW situation. They make bits and specifically name GW imagery/themes that they are supposed to represent, with no compensation going to GW.

I find your Suzuki comparison to be a bit off.
We're not talking about CH using the GW logo. We're talking about them making parts to fit GW models...
Imagine the companies making bags that DON'T have the suzuki logo on them. Those okay?
Same thing here.
The difference if the decorations. it's up for debate right now whether CH is using decorative likenesses that GW should have the right to.

Eric

Mr Mystery wrote:not sure that's right. If I understand correctly (not entirely guaranteed) IP is an invioble right as soon as you publish/release/write something original. Trademarks however, you need to apply for. Thus as the Harry Potter books exist, you could not just write about a wizard boy named Harry Potter, as it is not your IP?

Copyright does occur automatically after you publish a work.

If you write a song nobody else can sing that exact song or distribute that exact song without your permission.

You can write a song a little bit different than it, though.

And?

They are using GW IP to trade. If it wasn't for the GW IP, they'd have nothing to sell, and no one to sell to. They have ripped GW off quite shamelessly.

Why GW are going after the walker, I don't know. But the Marine parts, Eldar parts, Tyranid parts have all been advertised as such. Try to grasp this...it's likely more the usage of GW names and to a certain extant iconography, than the shape and attachment points of the models that have got a bee in GWs bonnet. This is something CH were previously shameless of, claiming to have 'shown the way' and proclaiming how 'we've got round IP'.

I do wonder just how well people grasp the impact GW losing control of it's IP would be. ANYONE could produce ANYTHING using the names, themes, iconography etc of GW. We're talking films, computer games, table top games etc. This is why they have to come down hard on CH, whether you feel it's deserved or not. No company can ever afford to lose control of it's IP.

EDIT....this was in reply to Chaosomega....been a few posts since then!

Also, worth considering..GW are a lot more web savvy than you think. And all those posts on all those Forums...are still there. Bring those to the Court, and you have pretty much proven their intent to trade off of GW's IP without permission, leaving CH on an exceptionally sticky wicket.

Funny part is they're already changing the names on the website to be more generic. Have a lot more to go but they started

Oh well. Personally I'm siding w/GW on this as CH just danced to close to the line recently. You can tease a dog thru a fence but be careful not to accidentally make an opening for it.

Mr Mystery wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:In my opinion, a win for CH would be a win for greedy little chancers. I know it might not be the popular opinion, but they have been largely parasitic in their designs, using established iconography. Whether GW have got round to sculpting/releasing that particular item is immaterial. CH and others deliberately piggyback on their hard work, and that's not something I enjoy seeing.

If GW would release proper model support for thier codexes, many players would not be turning to third-parties to provide the materials needed to produce WSIWYG models. GW itself is creating the demand for these people by releasing codexes with massive holes in the model line for them. Shutting them down is simply opening the door even futher for GW to be lazy and hide behind the moniker of encouraging opportunities for "creative conversions".

Or they go back to how the Codecies were before, with only stuff currently available included, which has a negative impact upon the game, as people have less variety to choose from. I fail to see how GW not having released a given item is somehow carte blanche for someone else to step in with a knock off product, proclaiming 'all me own work guv'. Which CH have.

How is it a 'knock off' product if there was no original to make an inferior copy of? As for it being all their own work to produce something that GW doesn't, well it is all their own work if they do. The inspiration is certainly not original, but they created something on their own, they didn't merely find a way to cheaply and sub-standardly manufacture an existing product.

I can accept that you don't find that correct for whatever personal beliefs and reasons that you may have, but that is all that it is. They created models and model parts to appeal to a distinct market and profited by it. They did what any good businessman is encouraged to do.