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.

GW just posted a facebook update about this incredible Land Speeder Storm which had been uploaded to their Flickr pool.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/prefix84/6032005611/sizes/l/in/pool-1606491@N21/

It's a beautiful piece, but those are definitely Pig Iron heads. So, do you think GW just haven't realised, or have the web team relaxed their 'no non-GW parts' stance....?

I think they just haven't realised. It's like when they posted an ulthwe army on the blog that had micro art bases and then stated that the bases were made using cities of death components. There was also a dark angel army posted on the blog that featured chapter house studios parts, the company they are now suing.

So it would appear GW is happy to use other companies IP to advertise there products and boost sales. Whilst suing those same companies for alleged IP infringement.

I knew I recognised those heads!

The dumbest thing about it is that the guy clearly bought a GW model to put the heads on, but GW still considers it a bad thing that people buy bits like this.

I think they just haven't realised.

So it would appear GW is happy to use other companies IP to advertise there products and boost sales. Whilst suing those same companies for alleged IP infringement.

These two statements contradict each other. If they are unaware how can the consiously advertise others IP and hence sue them?

On a related note, where did Kelly get his wolf models?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=17700032a

Chaos hounds.

Hey, I recognize that speeder...

Here's his blog, he has a bunch of really nice stuff.

http://reds-corps.blogspot.com/2011/08/red-scorpions-landspeeder-storm.html



edit: WOW, I see GW actually gives credit to the modeler on their Flickr page. Amazing!

Bah, thought PK he might have been trying a fast one.

Pig Iron is pretty popular stuff around IG fans, surprised GW doesnt recognize them. Very nice looking model though

GW's silly moment of the day

Ratius wrote:

I think they just haven't realised.

So it would appear GW is happy to use other companies IP to advertise there products and boost sales. Whilst suing those same companies for alleged IP infringement.

These two statements contradict each other. If they are unaware how can the consiously advertise others IP and hence sue them?

On a related note, where did Kelly get his wolf models?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=17700032a

The two other examples I posted support that statement so obvious troll is obvious.

In the case of the micro art bases they later removed the statement that they were built from cities of death sprue, as they were rumbled, though they did not credit micro art as having produced them when they are required to state that they are and that they remain the property of micro art. In the dark angel post they were informed but did not attribute them to chapter house as they should have thus potentially leading to misrepresentation of the product to the customers as the GW kits do not contain there parts.

If you use another manufacturers goods in an advert for your product you have to say where the parts are from as well as a statement to the effect that the rights remain with that company. GW insists that others do that with there products but does not reciprocate this legal requirement then files what may turn out to be spurious lawsuit against one of the companies involved.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:

Ratius wrote:

I think they just haven't realised.

So it would appear GW is happy to use other companies IP to advertise there products and boost sales. Whilst suing those same companies for alleged IP infringement.

These two statements contradict each other. If they are unaware how can the consiously advertise others IP and hence sue them?

On a related note, where did Kelly get his wolf models?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=17700032a

The two other examples I posted support that statement so obvious troll is obvious.

In the case of the micro art bases they later removed the statement that they were built from cities of death sprue, as they were rumbled, though they did not credit micro art as having produced them when they are required to state that they are and that they remain the property of micro art.

They don't "have" to do diddly squat. They can just say "this modeler used scenic bases of a kind available from any number of companies" and be in the clear, if they wanted to.

In the dark angel post they were informed but did not attribute them to chapter house as they should have thus potentially leading to misrepresentation of the product to the customers as the GW kits do not contain there parts.

Who says they were informed? Seriously, if you look at any number of these Flickr submissions they give basically no information.

If you use another manufacturers goods in an advert for your product you have to say where the parts are from as well as a statement to the effect that the rights remain with that company.

You're mistaking "advertisement" with "showcasing".

They're not using people's photographs as "advertising". They're "showcasing" people's submissions.

GW insists that others do that with there products but does not reciprocate this legal requirement then files what may turn out to be spurious lawsuit against one of the companies involved.

Yeah..."using our IP in a photograph" isn't why Chapterhouse is being sued. But okay, sure.

So it would appear GW is happy to use other companies IP to advertise there products and boost sales. Whilst suing those same companies for alleged IP infringement.

Totally! Because showing off a model in a Flickr pool and on an article on their website is using other companies IP to boost sales!!!

Wait...

Cryonicleech wrote:

So it would appear GW is happy to use other companies IP to advertise there products and boost sales. Whilst suing those same companies for alleged IP infringement.

Totally! Because showing off a model in a Flickr pool and on an article on their website is using other companies IP to boost sales!!!

Wait...

Companies that literally only exist to provide 3rd party parts to GW models. They would be wetting themselves with excitement that GW has (accidentally) created any more awareness of their product, even if it's only through the furiously self-righteous lens of the internet.

Also, Unclebadtouch, you might want to research the term "troll". It doesn't mean "person that points out that I'm jumping to conclusions and sounding like a frothing lunatic".

Nice Landspeeder though.

Looks like i stirred up all the GW fan boys with the truth so let's answer this all step by step

@kanluwen first of all if you check GWs legal page they insist on having the disclaimer of rights when there images are used in advertising, even when used by there independent stockists. If this is not the law (even though I'm pretty sure it is) I'll check and get back GW should at least reciprocate this behaviour. Also GW has not even said they where from "miscellaneous other hobby companies" first of all they tried to claim credit for the micro art bases, then after that statement was deleted have made no comment on either as having third party parts. This could lead to a consumer assuming said parts where included in a kit and buying it only to be mislead. That is false advertising, that's why they had the issue with the SM assault marine box having to be changed as it had a thunder hammer on the sergeant in the back of box photo. Either way the parts should have been credited to the manufacturer or listed as "miscellaneous" supplier. They did neither.

They were informed as myself, several staff members and several members of my gaming community emailed them and even provided the link to chapter house joking how they thought it was funny. That's just the people I personally know off but yes they were informed.

Showing a product you sell in a good light is not showcasing it's advertising, it makes your product more desireable to the consumer. Putting an Aston Martin in a bond movie isn't showcasing, it's advertising.

Show me a quote where I stated that they were being sued over including GW models in there photos, I think you will find you can't. I also said may be spurious as I do believe there may be some issues that need resolving regards to chapter houses "business model".

@cryonicleech if people didn't think the aftermarket parts didn't improve the models those companies would not be in business, thus showing photos of nicely painted models using those items can increase desire for said model. This can also lead to misleading the consumer when parts shown on models, that aren't properly credited, aren't in the box they purchase.

@plastic trees micro art definately does not rely soley on selling aftermarket parts for GW models. Quite the opposite in fact a large proportion on there bases are round lipped for use with war machine, they are an official supplier of accessories to Corvus belli for the game infinity and actually have there own scifi range "the brotherhood".

As for chapter house, yes they have many third party components for GW models, they also have complete scifi miniatures for sale Including scifi vehicles and also have base sets that can be used for any 28mm game. So I think your claim that both companies I discussed only exist to provide third party parts is wrong.

Also your forgetting that production of third party parts is allowed under law.

A troll also only partially quotes someone to allow a contradictory comment to be made in a facile manner to create a hostile response.

Also trying to imply someone is a "frothing lunatic" is trolling, trying to start a flamewar are you? Bad boy.

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:Quite the opposite in fact a large proportion on there bases are round lipped for use with war machine, they are an official supplier of accessories to Corvus belli for the game infinity and actually have there own scifi range "the Adeptus Mechanicus".

Fixed that for you

@arbitorian nope the adepts mechanicus are GWs interpretation of the classic scifi machine cult, the brotherhood are micro art studios interpretation of the classic scifi machine cult. By suggesting otherwise your failing to realise that none of GWs work is original.

This means that although you cannot directly copy what they create, this would be forgery in essence, you can use the same inspiration to create your own line of products.

This is what micro art has done.

Unless you want to rename the whole "Tau" range to "anime"

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:@arbitorian nope the adepts mechanicus are GWs interpretation of the classic scifi machine cult, the brotherhood are micro art studios interpretation of the classic scifi machine cult. By suggesting otherwise your failing to realise that none of GWs work is original.

"Classic Sci-Fi machine cult"

Strange, considering there really isn't a "classic sci-fi machine cult". Is Micro Art Studios infringing? Of course not. But just because GW isn't original doesn't mean everyone else is.

Also, following your logic.

GW displays pictures of a nicely painted model. Said model is converted using a different manufacturer's bits. Ergo, GW is lying to the customers by showing a model painted by a third party (The uploader) that includes bits from another company, infringing on that company's IP in a cheap attempt to boost sales.

Do you see how that doesn't work? Now, if GW used that model on something official like a box cover or advertisement then yes, it would be infringement. But seeing as how they are only hosting a picture sent by a 3rd party source beyond GW, it's not infringement.

Also, just because some disagrees with your negative view of GW does not make them a troll or a fanboy. For someone who is accusing people of illogical bias, you don't seem to be any more unbiased yourself....

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:Looks like i stirred up all the GW fan boys with the truth so let's answer this all step by step

Fanboy, troll, flamewar...maybe put the Obnoxious Forum Poster for Dummies book down for a second and converse like a human being.
You're not a truth telling rebel amongst a horde of GW loving zealots, you're someone expressing a negative opinion of GW in a painfully condescending and slightly incoherent manner on DakkaDakka. We're neck deep in you people.

I'm not forgetting that "production of third party parts is allowed under law", as the legality of third party manufacturers was in no way mentioned in my post.

If you genuinely believe that most of these company's would exist without GW existing then I don't think there's any point to taking that any further...which is great because it really has nothing to do with this.

The reality is that if one of these company's (the actual manufacturer, not some guy in the internet and his friends) contacted GW informing them that they are using their parts and asking them to credit them they would almost certainly just take the picture down. So GW doesn't care, they just pick a) different pics that don't show those parts or b) an entirely different army/model to showcase. The guy that used the part(s) doesn't get his army/model showcased in front of thousands of people and the third party manufacturer doesn't get people sent to their site after asking "what's that bit" on a random forum.

So what's your point again? GW are evil hypocrites because they totally...

@cryonicleech its simple if you saw on a companies OFFICIAL website a product that features certain components that were not included when you purchased the item would you feel lied too?

Other companies will tell you when there adverts or images of products features something that is not featured in the product on sale, this is to prevent misrepresentation.

It is also common decency to credit people for there hard work.

As for classic scifi machine cult a good example would be for you to take a look at "metropolis" a film from 1927 featuring cybernetic enhancement and godlike worship of machines.

I freely admit I have a negative view of GWs business practices, however I do have a generally positive view of there product and retail/studio staff.

@plastictrees so a full paragraph of bile followed by flat denials with no supporting argument, probably for the best you have decided to call it quits.

You should be aware GW is not "the hobby" it is a company that provides a product to the hobbyist a very important distinction.

If the work of other companies is not credited to them, no one will be aware of the product and there will be no gain for the small company. So they can hardly be said to be gaining from the uncredited posting of there work.

Some might consider most of Science Fiction a machine cult.

Back on topic, I suspect that GW's web guys just haven't realised the helmets are Pig Iron.

It would be nice if GW would credit other companies for parts used in conversions. I don't think that is their policy, though.

I would not feel lied to at all, as GW did not state ownership of the aforementioned bits. Remember, it is explicitly stated that the model was created by a 3rd party outside of GW. So when certain components are missing, I can understand because GW did not say anywhere that the kit I saw on their Flickr page was an "official" GW studio model.

Again, if it was GW's model being used, and being advertised rather than shown off as it were, then yes, GW should indeed state that those heads are Pig Iron. However, GW is not using the picture for advertising, nor do they have any rights to that particular image.

If Pig Iron really had a problem with the image they could indeed ask GW to take it down and so be it. However, to assume that a person sees the picture, fully understanding that it was assembled by an average hobbyist outside of the GW studio, and feels cheated because the same bits in the picture are not in the kit is a stretch of the imagination. While I could understand your position if the picture was used by GW in an advertisement or official endorsement or whatnot then yes, we'd have a problem, but to suggest that GW is leeching off of Pig Iron's hard work is illogical and is jumping to conclusion

The things we have to keep in mind is that the guys on the GW team that handle the Flickr page are just average joes. They're probably too excited with the paintjob and all the like to notice that the heads belong to another company. Now, if they were to explicitly deny that the heads are Pig Iron, then again we'd have an issue. Instead what we have here is, simply, a really nice model being shown off on the GW Flickr page by the web team, and it is most certainly not copyright infringement.

@cyronicleech I guess we will have to disagree on how we perceive the use of facebook by companies is intended. Personally I believe it's used as a form of social marketing as it is operated and moderated by representatives of the company. You obviously think otherwise and in as far as that perception goes there is no real right or wrong answer merely a personal opinion.

Kanluwen wrote:

In the dark angel post they were informed but did not attribute them to chapter house as they should have thus potentially leading to misrepresentation of the product to the customers as the GW kits do not contain there parts.

Who says they were informed? Seriously, if you look at any number of these Flickr submissions they give basically no information.

If you use another manufacturers goods in an advert for your product you have to say where the parts are from as well as a statement to the effect that the rights remain with that company.

You're mistaking "advertisement" with "showcasing".

Oh come on you're splitting hairs there. Why does the corporation run a site to encourage people to send stuff in? It's advertising of a certain kind. The blog on their website, that's advertising, all the photos put on there and the 'articles', it's a means by which to advertise your product.

Unless you think it's all genuine, with blog posts like "I was just wandering down the old shop the other day, as you do, and accidentally bought all the latest cool miniatures which coincidentally are advertised at the bottom on the page and in this months White Dwarf available from all good retailers for the princely sum of £4.50"

@UNCLEBADTOUCH: Well, fair enough. Opinions are opinions and you're right in that it is a grey area.

Howard, the thing to keep in mind here is that while it is advertising of a certain kind, that it is not intentional IP infringement. There's certainly the potential for issue but I would think it's a bit silly to flat out suggest that GW is using Pig Iron's product to push their own sales.

Cryonicleech wrote:@UNCLEBADTOUCH: Well, fair enough. Opinions are opinions and you're right in that it is a grey area.

Howard, the thing to keep in mind here is that while it is advertising of a certain kind, that it is not intentional IP infringement. There's certainly the potential for issue but I would think it's a bit silly to flat out suggest that GW is using Pig Iron's product to push their own sales.

I certainly didn't suggest that, it very likely is accidental, people just aren't spotting stuff that GW don't produce. But regardless of whether or not they know, they have made a mistake. When brought to their attention they should, according to what others have said about the law, make a correction and credit the source of things not produced by them.

That's a sweet model. Nice use of the Pig Iron heads, would never have thought of using them in a Marine army, too fixated on Guard. I really couldn't care less about GW posting something with another companies bits on it. If they're all hung up about using their own minis that's their problem not mine, so I don't have much emotional investment in them messing up on this policy either.

oni wrote:Here's his blog, he has a bunch of really nice stuff.

http://reds-corps.blogspot.com/2011/08/red-scorpions-landspeeder-storm.html

This guy's stuff is sweet, thanks for the link oni!

UNCLEBADTOUCH wrote:Show me a quote where I stated that they were being sued over including GW models in there photos, I think you will find you can't. I also said may be spurious as I do believe there may be some issues that need resolving regards to chapter houses "business model".

I'm curious - why the quote marks around "business model"?

Kilkrazy wrote:Some might consider most of Science Fiction a machine cult.

Even as far as weak arguments go, that one's downright inane. Congratulations.

@dysartes because I think certain decisions they make fall outside what would be considered good business practice and therefore what they see as there "business model" would be unlikely to stand up to the rigours of scrutiny.