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.

You apperar to suggest each game should have a given set of models produced by one modelmaker.
The hobby, as you know, has more aspects than simply setting up a given pieces on a table.

Competition and diversity in gaming is not simply a question of different gaming systems each using unique sets of models.

IMHO GW need to review their attitude about IP and the hobby, but I realise this won't happen. Again, the IP protectiion is being used here as a means to and end and not for its own sake.

Can we agree that CH never claimed its products to be official GW products?
And that sueing Jon Paulson for sculpting a model that is clearly and obviously sculpted by Zac Soden, is ... erm ... unjustified?

Then we have a more reasonable basis for discussion.

Agamemnon2 wrote:Well, since Chapterhouse has always claimed to rest on sturdy legal grounds, it's now time for them to put their money where their mouth is and prove it.

Concur...well said.

Chapterhouse wrote: I am changing the names until this is sorted out in any case. To see that as an admission of guilt, well, that is your call.

If you intend to change them back after the case, why change them at all? Im sure the GW legal has or will get a copy of the website from before these couple of changes to the names yo have just made.

Im not saying you are guilty, however you are assuming a very defensive position on the matter now, which I personally see that you may have unwittingly crossed the line without knowing.

Nothing wrong with following legal advice until the lawsuit is settled. And as said, civil lawsuits are not about guilt.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:You apperar to suggest each game should have a given set of models produced by one modelmaker.
The hobby, as you know, has more aspects than simply setting up a given pieces on a table.

Competition and diversity in gaming is not simply a question of different gaming systems each using unique sets of models.

IMHO GW need to review their attitude about IP and the hobby, but I realise this won't happen. Again, the IP protectiion is being used here as a means to and end and not for its own sake.

I think what you're getting at is that if GW really was concerned about protecting the IP they would issue licenses to third party manufacturers to produce conversion bits, etc. correct? But instead they are using IP protection as a public affairs bit to make them seem like less of a 'bad guy' while they abuse the legal system to snuff out (perceived) competition?

chaos0xomega wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:You apperar to suggest each game should have a given set of models produced by one modelmaker.
The hobby, as you know, has more aspects than simply setting up a given pieces on a table.

Competition and diversity in gaming is not simply a question of different gaming systems each using unique sets of models.

IMHO GW need to review their attitude about IP and the hobby, but I realise this won't happen. Again, the IP protectiion is being used here as a means to and end and not for its own sake.

I think what you're getting at is that if GW really was concerned about protecting the IP they would issue licenses to third party manufacturers to produce conversion bits, etc. correct? But instead they are using IP protection as a public affairs bit to make them seem like less of a 'bad guy' while they abuse the legal system to snuff out (perceived) competition?

Why should GW issue licenses to third parties to make things and allow other companies to profit from GW's 30ish years of prosperity? Because they are the dominant leader in this niche industry they somehow have to share the wealth of their years of development with every company that can make cool stuff with modeling putty? I understand what you are saying, and it would be neat, I'd love the idea, but thats not capitalism. No one starts or runs a business to make other people rich(relatively speaking).

Thats also not GW's modus operandi as of late, its the opposite in fact, where when you walk into a GW store and everything you see on their gaming tables, be it terrain, gaming equipment, etc. etc. is GW stuff and you can buy right there at the store or get it ordered. Their goal for the GW hobby is to have complete control of the GW hobby, and I can personally respect that because I'm a captalist pig!

And how do they abuse the legal system? Sounds a bit over dramatic.

Squig_herder wrote:

Chapterhouse wrote: I am changing the names until this is sorted out in any case. To see that as an admission of guilt, well, that is your call.

If you intend to change them back after the case, why change them at all? Im sure the GW legal has or will get a copy of the website from before these couple of changes to the names yo have just made.

Im not saying you are guilty, however you are assuming a very defensive position on the matter now, which I personally see that you may have unwittingly crossed the line without knowing.

Because by changing the names it shows the court that there is a remedy other than shutting down a company and destroying everything its done to further an industry; that if the court determines the use of GW's TM isn't fair use that CH can divorce itself of that use in describing its products.

aka_mythos wrote:Because by changing the names it shows the court that there is a remedy other than shutting down a company and destroying everything its done to further an industry; that if the court determines the use of GW's TM isn't fair use that CH can divorce itself of that use in describing its products.

Seriously? So he's not just some guy that sells mostly ok third party gaming parts, he's a pioneer now?

Your dictation and compelling argument has swayed my opinions, sir. Bravo to you.

NELS1031 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:You apperar to suggest each game should have a given set of models produced by one modelmaker.
The hobby, as you know, has more aspects than simply setting up a given pieces on a table.

Competition and diversity in gaming is not simply a question of different gaming systems each using unique sets of models.

IMHO GW need to review their attitude about IP and the hobby, but I realise this won't happen. Again, the IP protectiion is being used here as a means to and end and not for its own sake.

I think what you're getting at is that if GW really was concerned about protecting the IP they would issue licenses to third party manufacturers to produce conversion bits, etc. correct? But instead they are using IP protection as a public affairs bit to make them seem like less of a 'bad guy' while they abuse the legal system to snuff out (perceived) competition?

Why should GW issue licenses to third parties to make things and allow other companies to profit from GW's 30ish years of prosperity? Because they are the dominant leader in this niche industry they somehow have to share the wealth of their years of development with every company that can make cool stuff with modeling putty? I understand what you are saying, and it would be neat, I'd love the idea, but thats not capitalism. No one starts or runs a business to make other people rich(relatively speaking).

Thats also not GW's modus operandi as of late, its the opposite in fact, where when you walk into a GW store and everything you see on their gaming tables, be it terrain, gaming equipment, etc. etc. is GW stuff and you can buy right there at the store or get it ordered. Their goal for the GW hobby is to have complete control of the GW hobby, and I can personally respect that because I'm a captalist pig!

And how do they abuse the legal system? Sounds a bit over dramatic.

To start with, GW doesn't need to share the wealth. Licensing is not giving others the right to use your IP free of charge, just ask George Lucas, you can make your fortunes in licensing alone. GW (and by extension FW) can't make everything, it has finite resources to work with. Licensing third parties to design and produce things like custom bits for x race or y faction, little nit-picky things that are intended for the hardcore fans that read every book BL has ever published, etc. and then skimming 20% off the top or whatever will result in more profit than in not licensing at all and MAYBE producing that particular bit somewhere ten years down the line.

Also, I would like to point out that back in the days of RT or 2nd ed. or so, GW DID license out to others (see Armorcast), and these days are very fondly remembered by many GW hobbyists (though not myself as I hadn't yet started playing). If anything, licensing is as capitalist as it gets, there is a demand that you can't fill, and if you don't fill it others will (hence why we now have companies like CH, Paulson, Maximini, etc.), which is lost revenue streams, but if you license, you have them do all the work and you get a nice royalty check in the mail.

and abusing the legal system is something very real. GW files a legal suit, on possibly shaky grounds (as per several people in the legal profession that posted in this thread, there isn't a whole lot of substance to the legal document posted online) against a much smaller company that can either agree to whatever terms GW imposes upon it (such as destroying all production molds of offending products, etc. which usually results in the company going under (unless you're Dreamforge Games, which took years to recover and get back into production)) or attempt to fight them in court, which results in large legal fees that will most likely drag the company under anyway. See the Foam Wars for further examples of other businesses in this industry engaging in such practices.

Yikes.

The only person(s) that should be taking anything personal here are the owners/operators/employees of ChapterHouse. Remember how the vacuum of the internet can turn an ill typed phrase into something much more personal for the receiving party.


Back to topic, at least this will set a precedent in regards to GW and third party suppliers. I'm simply afraid they have the money to quash ChapterHouse and I"m also afraid a victory might convince them to target others...

Unfortunate that this will probably be a long process... I hope people continue to buy from Chapterhouse in the interim, as he's posted here that they will be continuing to supply their parts and if for any reason they couldn't, a full refund.

Also appreciate our resident (actual) lawyers sticking with this thread... if I ever have to skim, yours are the posts I go straight to

There's an old saying among game companies: You aren't officially in the business until you get sued. Reading through all of this, I did get a kick out of all the fluff that was in the court docs. Maybe their lawyers can contribute some fluff to upcoming codexes... Ian has the right idea. CH's best defense would be to find older White Dwarfs that feaured articles on kit bashing.

As to the case itself, CH doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. Selling bits or resin kits is one thing, selling and marketing them using someone else's trademarked IP is just stupid. First time I was on CH's site I was surprised how blatant and brazen they were. I know a lot of people call GW the evil empire and think they are in the wrong, but that isn't the case this time IMO.

If someone stole my artwork and decided to sell and make posters from it or use it as a cover of a book, I would be equally pissed. And for those of you that think this lawsuit is being done to snuff out competition for sales, you are crazy. The yearly profits that CH pulls in wouldn't even register as a blip on their radar. It's all about GW protecting their IP.

Good luck to the CH guys, but it's not looking good...

Neconilis wrote:
Another business offered a lower price alternative, that is how the free market is supposed to function and I fail to see the issue with that in a capitalistic society.

Yeh, but they did it using images and icons that were recognizably GW in origin and design and in doing so have capitalised on GW's investment in background, artwork and advertising.

They would have done much better making stuff that was original, ie. original chapters and iconography, and sticking with generic names.

Would Chapterhouse cry foul if someone made a Tau walker based on their design and sold it in competition?

theharrower wrote:There's an old saying among game companies: You aren't officially in the business until you get sued. Reading through all of this, I did get a kick out of all the fluff that was in the court docs. Maybe their lawyers can contribute some fluff to upcoming codexes... Ian has the right idea. CH's best defense would be to find older White Dwarfs that feaured articles on kit bashing.

As to the case itself, CH doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. Selling bits or resin kits is one thing, selling and marketing them using someone else's trademarked IP is just stupid. First time I was on CH's site I was surprised how blatant and brazen they were. I know a lot of people call GW the evil empire and think they are in the wrong, but that isn't the case this time IMO.

If someone stole my artwork and decided to sell and make posters from it or use it as a cover of a book, I would be equally pissed. And for those of you that think this lawsuit is being done to snuff out competition for sales, you are crazy. The yearly profits that CH pulls in wouldn't even register as a blip on their radar. It's all about GW protecting their IP.

Good luck to the CH guys, but it's not looking good...

But hes not stealing the model design, the closest comparison i can think of is third party making components that work with an existing product, like a skin for an ipod.

"Infantry and Shoulder Pad Bits for 28mm models. Banners shown below are player created and used with permission of the owner."

They seem to think that they can use GW iconography to advertise their product if they get someone else to draw/paint it and then ask that random person's permission.
"Don't be stupid" seems to be the point for other third party component manufacturers to take away here.

Deadshane1 wrote:I think GW and CH should just decide it on a 4+ like in the rulebook.

Except being GW, it would be a d6 chart:
1 - GW loses, Chapterhouse takes over GW
2-3 - GW loses, Chapterhouse gets to keep making bitz
4-5 - GW wins, Chapterhouse is put out of business
6 - GW wins, Chapterhouse is sacrificed to the 4 gods of business (Revenue, Profit, IP, and Credit)

youbedead wrote:But hes not stealing the model design, the closest comparison i can think of is third party making components that work with an existing product, like a skin for an ipod.

GW's lawyers are going to show a bunch of pictures to the jury that show Chapterhouse's bitz next to Games Workshop's bitz. I'm sure they also have pictures of Chapterhouse's Banner at the top of their website which shows "Specializing in Custom Sculpts and Bits for Warhammer 40,000 and Fantasy" as well as tons of photos that show the bitz on GW's models as well as all of the other references to GW's IP.

They are going to ask the jury, can you tell that these two products are entirely different? Do these look like separate products from different companies or do they look like a product that would be produced by the same company. When the jury is like, "Hmm, I don't know they do kinda look the same," the case is over.

The jury isn't going to consist of people like us that understand this stuff, it's going to be your mom and dad and people that have no exposure to 40K whatsoever. Couple that with all of the IP references on their website and it's pretty much an open and shut case. I could be wrong as I'm no lawyer, but it seems pretty straight forward to me.

Polonius wrote:Interestingly, actions taken after an action has been filed to correct the problem cannot be introduced as evidence of the problem. I forget what rule it was, but it's a pretty explicit rule.

I think it's Rule 407, Subsequent Remedial Measures Rule.
When, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.

It's been a while since Evidence and the bar exam...

It does not matter who is in the “right” or “wrong” here, any big corporation can throw a pile of filings at a smaller company (that HAVE to be responded to, with associated fees) and win the case on sheer volume of paperwork. Big companies always win over the little ones.

A good parallel would be Ford going after Mustangs Plus here in CA. Even though MP had been in business for 20+ years with that name (with Fords blessing in the past), once Ford decided that they wanted to “protect their IP”, the legal battle was on (and still pending I believe).

dietrich wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:I think GW and CH should just decide it on a 4+ like in the rulebook.

Except being GW, it would be a d6 chart:
1 - GW loses, Chapterhouse takes over GW
2-3 - GW loses, Chapterhouse gets to keep making bitz
4-5 - GW wins, Chapterhouse is put out of business
6 - GW wins, Chapterhouse is sacrificed to the 4 gods of business (Revenue, Profit, IP, and Credit)

I would buy stock in GW tomorrow if when they issued C&D's, they delivered the letters in person dressed as Inquisitors.

theharrower wrote:GW's lawyers are going to show a bunch of pictures to the jury that show Chapterhouse's bitz next to Games Workshop's bitz.

It's highly unlikely this gets to a jury trial. Most likely, they settle out of court. GW may not even intend to take it to trial.

theharrower wrote:

youbedead wrote:But hes not stealing the model design, the closest comparison i can think of is third party making components that work with an existing product, like a skin for an ipod.

GW's lawyers are going to show a bunch of pictures to the jury that show Chapterhouse's bitz next to Games Workshop's bitz. I'm sure they also have pictures of Chapterhouse's Banner at the top of their website which shows "Specializing in Custom Sculpts and Bits for Warhammer 40,000 and Fantasy" as well as tons of photos that show the bitz on GW's models as well as all of the other references to GW's IP.

They are going to ask the jury, can you tell that these two products are entirely different? Do these look like separate products from different companies or do they look like a product that would be produced by the same company. When the jury is like, "Hmm, I don't know they do kinda look the same," the case is over.

The jury isn't going to consist of people like us that understand this stuff, it's going to be your mom and dad and people that have no exposure to 40K whatsoever. Couple that with all of the IP references on their website and it's pretty much an open and shut case. I could be wrong as I'm no lawyer, but it seems pretty straight forward to me.

The jury agreeing w/ GW's argument doesn't necessarily mean the end of Chapterhouse. They (or the judge? I know juries recommend certain sentences or whatever, right?) could decide that Chapterhouse is not guilty of producing items which infringe on GW's IP, only that they are marketing it as such, and as such CH's sentence would be to pay for damages and/or to change its marketing angle to comply, but they may continue operations otherwise.

It's highly unlikely that there's even going to be a jury.

Well, if the guys at CH are anything like me, unless GW offered (what I would consider) a fair settlement there would be a jury (I'm assuming that was in reference to whether or not the case goes to trial), but there are plenty of lawyers in the family, so thats just me.

I have to say, I am not surprised that this has happened. When CH were promoting their Tervigon conversion, I thought they might be asking for trouble producing something which was marketed as a specific Tyranid unit (I agree with the poster who suggested that the Tervigon might have been the final straw). I realise there is a lot of sympathy for CH, as they're just a group of good sculptors who are trying to make a bit of money out of providing bits that GW doesn't (yet) do. And of course, GW has substantially more resources to devote to this lawsuit; unless CH think they have a good case, or are prepared to invest real cash in defending the case on principle, they're already at major disadvantage, so they're very much the 'little guy' - simply suing them could well force them out of business. On the other hand, GW have invested considerable time and resources in developing the IP that underpins its products, and its high overheads means it needs to make as much profit as it can from those products. It is therefore going to try and prevent other people from exploiting its IP for their own ends (that's not strictly speaking how the law works, but that's the thrust of a claim against an IP infringer). A company like GW has to take steps against unauthorised use of its IP - not the least to keep shareholders happy.

It's also very naive to go on (as many do) about GW owing people some kind of moral right to permit competitors to exploit its IP, even if they're producing stuff that we like. The Tervigon conversion is a good example; I didn't like it much, but it was quite well received. But if GW are planning a plastic kit of it (as they surely must be), then every CH Tervigon sale is arguably a loss for them. Why should they allow that to happen? They will have worked out that, for all the negative feedback that taking legal action against someone like CH generates, most customers won't care. One point that's made repeatedly on forums is that GW should tolerate this kind of thing because they don't produce models/upgrades for everything themselves. Some of the gaps in the codexes are frustrating, and it's hard to understand why GW doesn't do something about them quicker - the Wave Serpent being a good example. More recently, new units that have appeared in codexes (like Thunderwolves and Tervigons) are clearly intended to be filled by official models/kits as and when GW are in a position to do so. GW's own resources aren't unlimited, however, and there are always going to be time lags (I wonder if this might even be deliberate, and they're assessing demand for models before releasing them, but maybe that's ascribing too much method to their approach). In any case, the fact that gaps like this exist doesn't create an entitlement for someone else to leap in and fill them with a model unless it's generic enough to avoid infringing GW's IP. This is why the comparison with historical kits isn't a good one; companies like Tamiya can't stop 'after market' companies from producing resin accessories for specific vehicles because they don't have any rights over those vehicles. Interestingly, companies like Tamiya seem to have run into IP issues themselves with the owners of trademarks like Opel and Austin, who apparently won't let them use their logos or brand names on kits. Thus you get the Austin 'Tilly' (a WWII British light truck) being sold as the 'British light utility car 10HP' and the Opel Blitz (a WWII German truck) being sold as 'German 3 ton 4x2 cargo truck'.

It's possible that GW and CH will reach some kind of settlement - it depends whether GW is actually trying to drive CH out of the market, or just curtail the way they promote their stuff. The fact that CH have changed aspects of their website suggests that they're prepared to compromise. Before leaping to conclusions about what's going on, it's worth remembering that none of us have access to all of the evidence on which the claim (or any defence that CH may have) is based, and relatively few people understand either the legal or commercial issues involved. It's certainly unfair to describe CH as 'greedy chancers', just as it's unfair to portray GW as unnecessarily ruthless.

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.

For me, I'd be perfectly happy if they'd go back to a more simplistic codex setup if their model department can't keep up with the codex writers. Hell, maybe it would even give them the opportunity to do some better internal balancing (one can dream, right). As far as the "knock off" items are concerned, there are only a few places where CH might have crossed the line in the actual product they produce. Most of their product is generic enough to apply really to most models out there. I've been on the fence over their boneswords because they didn't look tyranid enough imo. Other than a couple pieces of product their only real sin is using the terminology that they did...and they should have to answer for that. Shutting down bits manufacters, however, just for producing bits that are geared toward a particular gaming system, makes the hobby worse for everyone including GW. I can tell you that right now, I'd strongly urge anyone looking at GW games to pick something else due to poor model support, and am getting pretty fed up myself to the point where I and several in my gaming group are considering selling off our armies and looking to a better supported game system.

This is why the comparison with historical kits isn't a good one; companies like Tamiya can't stop 'after market' companies from producing resin accessories for specific vehicles because they don't have any rights over those vehicles. Interestingly, companies like Tamiya seem to have run into IP issues themselves with the owners of trademarks like Opel and Austin, who apparently won't let them use their logos or brand names on kits. Thus you get the Austin 'Tilly' (a WWII British light truck) being sold as the 'British light utility car 10HP' and the Opel Blitz (a WWII German truck) being sold as 'German 3 ton 4x2 cargo truck'.

This gets even more interesting, because there are some aftermarket kits that are completely a-historical. They are few and far between, but I have seen aftermarket add on kits for Tamiya or trumpeter, or whoever that convert the vehicle into things that never existed. At this point, are they infringing on the kit makers IP? How about the original vehicle designers IP? After all, part of the purpose of IP is to give the owner control over derivative works, and that certainly is a very derivative work, not only of the original design, but also of the model kit that it was designed for (because lets face it, not all aftermarket detailing kits are good for more than one manufacturers offerings).