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.

Lanceradvanced wrote:

scipio.au wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:The first Necrons were very Terminator like.

They even had a special rule "I'll be back". Not sure if it's still in their books, as I've never played Necrons.

They go even further back than that... there's a figure that's recognizably a antecedent of the Necrons in Advanced Space Crusade and Space Marine/Titan Legions, that went by the name of "Chaos Android" and of course the first destroyers were quite diffrent from the current robo-scarab centaurs..

Yep, I had them once upon a time. I'm not sure if I actually ever played my copy of ASC or just used the miniatures for 40k. The Chaos Dreads still stand up pretty decently today.

$pider wrote:I have to say that this does cast a negative light on Chapterhouse if all of this is true. I am not a GW fan by any means, however it is their game, their fluff and Chapterhouse wouldn't be making a dime if GW didn't exist.

Chapterhouse should have played ball, and basically done what others have. No reason to take this where it has gone. Either way I don't see this ending well for anyone.

The opposite side being that if GW weren't such greedy control freak twits with over the top prices, then there wouldn't have been any area for Chapterhouse to have made a dime. So, who isn't playing ball and who is using the bat as a blunt instrument to bully with? Bet, if GW poofed away tonight, 40k would end up healthier than ever, with lower costs to the players, more rational rules, less rules changes to "encourage" the purchase of less well selling models and no more monopoly driven arrogance.

You want an example? It would have been trivial to write a bigger Space Marines Codex and include extra pages to account for the variant chapters. It might have cost a little more, but probably less than one of the variant codices cost by themselves. Oh, some fluff might have been lost, but the fluff doesn't match the tabletop game that well anyway, unless you want to play a game using FFG's Dark Heresy combat system. Or do you really think that mere humans really have not chance to kill a single veteran Space Marine?

scipio.au wrote:

Lanceradvanced wrote:

scipio.au wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:The first Necrons were very Terminator like.

They even had a special rule "I'll be back". Not sure if it's still in their books, as I've never played Necrons.

They go even further back than that... there's a figure that's recognizably a antecedent of the Necrons in Advanced Space Crusade and Space Marine/Titan Legions, that went by the name of "Chaos Android" and of course the first destroyers were quite diffrent from the current robo-scarab centaurs..

Yep, I had them once upon a time. I'm not sure if I actually ever played my copy of ASC or just used the miniatures for 40k. The Chaos Dreads still stand up pretty decently today.

The robots in Space Crusade were Chaos Androids, not Necrons.

-Loki- wrote:

scipio.au wrote:

Lanceradvanced wrote:

scipio.au wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:The first Necrons were very Terminator like.

They even had a special rule "I'll be back". Not sure if it's still in their books, as I've never played Necrons.

They go even further back than that... there's a figure that's recognizably a antecedent of the Necrons in Advanced Space Crusade and Space Marine/Titan Legions, that went by the name of "Chaos Android" and of course the first destroyers were quite diffrent from the current robo-scarab centaurs..

Yep, I had them once upon a time. I'm not sure if I actually ever played my copy of ASC or just used the miniatures for 40k. The Chaos Dreads still stand up pretty decently today.

The robots in Space Crusade were Chaos Androids, not Necrons.

That's what he said.

-Loki- wrote:
The robots in Space Crusade were Chaos Androids, not Necrons.

You do notice the resemblance though?

There's a resemblence, yes, but Chaos Androids actually have a place in the fluff. They weren't Necrons.

-Loki- wrote:There's a resemblence, yes, but Chaos Androids actually have a place in the fluff. They weren't Necrons.

And nobody has said they were Necrons.

Please check out the highlighted portion in my previous post. Lanceradvanced stated that the miniature for the chaos androids was, stylistically, a pre-cursor to the Necron miniatures. Neither he nor anybody else stated that they were Necron miniatures.

I was just thinking.

If a given unit figures in a codex would it not be considered a character in a work of fiction and thereby copyright protected? At least if it figured in fluff text (with anyway most minis do, because they have fluffy entry). Also, would they not be protected if there is a illustration of them in the book, even if there is no model?

Because seeing in this way i could technically get, as an example, the last Song of Ice and Fire book and make a mini of a new character that appears in the given book and them sell the figure using the name of the character without risking a lawsuit and not only that but i would become owner of the concept of the character (at least when speaking about miniature figures) from there on.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

Copyright protects the expression of an idea. If you express a character in text, then your text expression is what is protected.

Tabris_ wrote:I was just thinking.
If a given unit figures in a codex would it not be considered a character in a work of fiction and thereby copyright protected? At least if it figured in fluff text (with anyway most minis do, because they have fluffy entry). Also, would they not be protected if there is a illustration of them in the book, even if there is no model?
Because seeing in this way i could technically get, as an example, the last Song of Ice and Fire book and make a mini of a new character that appears in the given book and them sell the figure using the name of the character without risking a lawsuit and not only that but i would become owner of the concept of the character (at least when speaking about miniature figures) from there on.
It just doesn't make sense to me.

The answer is, 'it depends'.
I discusses a few pages back that something in is only protectable if your expression of the concept is separable from the concept itself by way of unique, original elements. This is often a direct function of how much is written about the character. For example, a knight bearing a shield of a golden lion on red is not separable from the concept of a knight, nor is the sigil unique or original. If you create a knight called Jaime Lannister the Kingslayer with a missing hand, regardless of his sigil you're possibly in for trouble.
Then there is the separation of what is unique and protected about your expression, what fits in public domain, and what is inseparable from the concept. Armour is inseparable from a knight or soldier. A clip, trigger, exhaust vents, handle are functional elements of a gun. A Templar Cross is public domain....
Certain elements and characters within GW's text are definitely fleshed out to claim copyright as a character. However, many things are not. I would argue that the description of the Tervigon unit entry is lacking in depth or unique elements to separate the Tervigon from the concept of a alien 'brood mother'. The Doom of Malantai is more unique/characterised, but still not incredibly so. Basically the law is saying 'you don't have any intellectual property rights over the tervigon, because you didn't do anything original to create it'.

Trasvi has hit the nail on the head and pretty much has highlighted the reason why GW is having issues with the current lawsuit. There’s a lot of ambiguity regarding the nature of GW’s intellectual property and given physically the models Chapterhouse has released, GW is having issues clearly defining what has been infringed. It’s kind of hard to prove that Chapterhouse have infringed a concept that in itself contains a lot of unoriginal elements.

scipio.au wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement. However, we are certainly not about to stop people making cool conversions of our products, although, there are certain things to keep in mind:

Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.

Seriously??!

Someone in the other thread mentioned that it was to cover their backsides legally from, say, Lucasfilm/LucasArts if someone were to start selling "Darth Vader Space Marines" on eBay and fo forth. Much like the "official" stance on Tattoos is that they're fine as long as no money exchanges hands, no-one there actually gives a crap, and half of them would think the Khorne Icon on your shoulder is quite cool.

I'm pretty sure they didn't care in years gone by though. There certainly have been themed armies shown in White Dwarf although not recently. And if you look at the original Rogue Trader book (IIRC) they kitbash space marines and daleks to make cyborgs!

Yes Citadel were making the Daleks at the time, but when LOTR comes around there are all sorts of licencing issues over mixing the ranges and tat'll be the film company's requirements - you initially were not supposed to for any official events. I think it's relaxed now. But for a while they were basically saying "you can only use GW figures for conversion, but not those GW figures, you can't use any of that lot even the really cool stuff like the Balrog wings.

GW legal wrote:Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.

Next plans are to sue Michael Moorcock for using the GW Chaos Star in his novels and James Cameron for using the concept of an Alien Queen in his movie
That's why Moorcock has put all upcoming Elric novels on hold

algesan wrote:

$pider wrote:I have to say that this does cast a negative light on Chapterhouse if all of this is true. I am not a GW fan by any means, however it is their game, their fluff and Chapterhouse wouldn't be making a dime if GW didn't exist.

Chapterhouse should have played ball, and basically done what others have. No reason to take this where it has gone. Either way I don't see this ending well for anyone.

The opposite side being that if GW weren't such greedy control freak twits with the top prices, then there wouldn't have been any area for Chapterhouse to have made a dime. So, who isn't playing ball and who is using the bat as a blunt instrument to bully with? Bet, if GW poofed away tonight, 40k would end up healthier than ever, with lower costs to the players, more rational rules, less rules changes to "encourage" the purchase of less well selling models and no more monopoly driven arrogance.

You want an example? It would have been trivial to write a bigger Space Marines Codex and include extra pages to account for the variant chapters. It might have cost a little more, but probably less than one of the variant codices cost by themselves. Oh, some fluff might have been lost, but the fluff doesn't match the tabletop game that well anyway, unless you want to play a game using FFG's Dark Heresy combat system. Or do you really think that mere humans really have not chance to kill a single veteran Space Marine?

Dude for real if GW did went away 40k would die. even though they have become greedy they have given us a great world to play in. And do you really think that the Chapterhouse would keep on making thier stuff for warhammer, no they would start making PP stuff because thats were the money would be at. Hate or love GW

army310 wrote:
Dude for real if GW did went away 40k would die. even though they have become greedy they have given us a great world to play in. And do you really think that the Chapterhouse would keep on making thier stuff for warhammer, no they would start making PP stuff because thats were the money would be at. Hate or love GW

Not true. There's tons of games that people play that have been out of production for years, some even decades. GW is not the hobby and to be honest... it's not even the be all, end all of 40K.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

army310 wrote:
Dude for real if GW did went away 40k would die. even though they have become greedy they have given us a great world to play in. And do you really think that the Chapterhouse would keep on making thier stuff for warhammer, no they would start making PP stuff because thats were the money would be at. Hate or love GW

Not true. There's tons of games that people play that have been out of production for years, some even decades. GW is not the hobby and to be honest... it's not even the be all, end all of 40K.

Seriously. I mean, how long has it been since Chess saw a rules update or a FAQ?

Lots of people still play the specialist games that GW hasn't supported for years.

army310 wrote:

algesan wrote:

$pider wrote:I have to say that this does cast a negative light on Chapterhouse if all of this is true. I am not a GW fan by any means, however it is their game, their fluff and Chapterhouse wouldn't be making a dime if GW didn't exist.

Chapterhouse should have played ball, and basically done what others have. No reason to take this where it has gone. Either way I don't see this ending well for anyone.

The opposite side being that if GW weren't such greedy control freak twits with the top prices, then there wouldn't have been any area for Chapterhouse to have made a dime. So, who isn't playing ball and who is using the bat as a blunt instrument to bully with? Bet, if GW poofed away tonight, 40k would end up healthier than ever, with lower costs to the players, more rational rules, less rules changes to "encourage" the purchase of less well selling models and no more monopoly driven arrogance.

You want an example? It would have been trivial to write a bigger Space Marines Codex and include extra pages to account for the variant chapters. It might have cost a little more, but probably less than one of the variant codices cost by themselves. Oh, some fluff might have been lost, but the fluff doesn't match the tabletop game that well anyway, unless you want to play a game using FFG's Dark Heresy combat system. Or do you really think that mere humans really have not chance to kill a single veteran Space Marine?

Dude for real if GW did went away 40k would die. even though they have become greedy they have given us a great world to play in. And do you really think that the Chapterhouse would keep on making thier stuff for warhammer, no they would start making PP stuff because thats were the money would be at. Hate or love GW

I have to agree with army310.

While GW may be greedy control freaks these are not valid reasons for CHS to step in. There are many similar companies all around the world that are just as greedy or controlling in some peoples eye as GW is for some on here. Ultimately if the game wasn't strong or desirable enough people would not buy it. If people don't like something they can express their opinions with their wallet and freedom of choice. Why is it people still buy 40K? Maybe becuase it's an excellent quality product and like most excellent quality products they come with a price tag.

Maybe GW gave us different Space Marine Codices as it offered choice. I for one do not want a Codex all about other chapters as I wanted the Chapter I bought. Choice over convenience is always going to be a hard one.

If GW pulled out of 40K and nobody could pick up the license. For sure it would die a death. It may be a slow, long and painful one but eventually the collapse of product release would drive the mainstream in to another games arms.

Sure chess is timeless and people play out of print games but without GW 40k would get pushed to the fringe eventually. You only have to look on any 40K forum to see lots of new product/releases is a big driver for many.

Like army310 pointed to. CHS would probably move on to the next cash cow if 40K imploded. There are plenty of examples out there that once a company fails behind a game the product soon loses the focus of the masses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trasvi wrote:

Chimaera wrote:

Stuff about the pictures.

If GW do manage to win the case. The ramifications could be much bigger than CHS and have an impact on all other 3rd parties. This I imagine would not be favourable to a lot of poeple out there. If GW lose it could be open season on their product and I do not see how this benefits the players/fans/collectors of the game. It would just make it harder to get product out to those who want it and reduce profits again making things more difficult in a number of ways. While some may relish this thought I do not. Tearing down a great thing because you don't agree with some aspects of how GW release product, their product strategy, market product or are over controlling in some areas are not really solid grounds for damaging a company who produce a great product and yes I do not agree with some of their principles but that doesn't mean I want to see them ground into dust although I do like Dust Tactics

Once the horse has bolted there is no point closing the stable door?

As for most of the pictures, I agree with you. There are superficial similarities between the pics and many GW items, but that does not mean they were copyrighted. The terminator is a good example - a metallic robotic skeleton. Necrons were developed from the tomb king concept (which was derived from the done-to-death concept of undead mummies). But Undead IN SPACE didn't really cut it (like dwarves IN SPACE), so GW turned undead into skeletal robots. Add to that there is nothing protectable about a skeleton... The Space-Marine - Storm-Trooper crossover is again limited to 'they're space troops wearing armour' although I do believe the design of Space Marine helmets from RT-era beakie marines to now was heavily influenced by the Stormtrooper helmet.
I think the message you should take from all those pictures is not, 'look at what GW directly referenced and copied to put into their universe' but 'look at the huge pool of common ideas and concepts that everyone uses all the time in generic sci-fi settings'. Particularly the humanoid battlesuits - GW specifically said they were inspired by a number of anime shows when creating the Tau race, but name concept of 'battlesuit' is so generic that you can't find 1 single robot that Tau were based off. Which is why I find it hilarious that GW sued CHS over the Superheavy Assault Walker: because a) it can fit into any anime/futuristic universe, and b) GW has not produced any models, artwork or stories referencing anything remotely like the walker. The only possible, remote issue I can see with it is that he has painted Tau symbology on it if you look closely enough.


If GW lose, at the moment it looks like this will be because they can't file a proper lawsuit and refuse to disclose what products of theirs they believe have been copied. If they do get their act together and still lose, it will be because they have an unrealistic view of intellectual property law and were overstepping their bounds for the last number of years. We won't see them but shut down and flooded by 3rd party stuff: I'd wager that only about 10% of GW customers know CHS exists, and of them only about 10% would even consider buying something. And as soon as GW brought out a set of XX marine chapter shoulder pads, those sales would completely eclipse CHS sales. I think we're just going to get better service out of the 3rd party industry, whilst GW follows normal business protocol and files 'trademark with intent to use' for products they don't make yet.

Your comments are well met but while I accept people draw inspiration from various sources. 40k does have a particular flavour/branding of it's miniatures and universe. If GW started producing minis or parts in the same vein/style of those of Mantic's I would say GW is equally in the wrong. Yes you could argue Mantic's have a generic fantasy feel but they are different to GW's Warhammer minis and it is noticeable to the trained eye.

After being a lifelong fan of Star Wars I feel there is no inspiration drawn from a Stormtrooper helmet. I would wager it more likely came from a motorcycle helmet with the beaky bit from a Knights helm added to the front.

Indeed the percentage may be viewed as small but even 1% is a large amount of money turnover wise for a large corporate. If more third parties came along would that eventualy equal 5% of T/O? This is probably why GW try to keep a tight rein on things and what they are probably worried about. Ultimately any loss income means less they can deliver to their customers, players, fans & collectors.

Trasvi has hit the nail on the head and pretty much has highlighted the reason why GW is having issues with the current lawsuit. There’s a lot of ambiguity regarding the nature of GW’s intellectual property and given physically the models Chapterhouse has released, GW is having issues clearly defining what has been infringed. It’s kind of hard to prove that Chapterhouse have infringed a concept that in itself contains a lot of unoriginal elements.

While maybe not acceptable in law. I think something that has the overwhelming aesthetic of another product it is that product.

Kroothawk wrote:

GW legal wrote:Please do not combine our intellectual properties with IP owned by any third parties.

Next plans are to sue Michael Moorcock for using the GW Chaos Star in his novels and James Cameron for using the concept of an Alien Queen in his movie
That's why Moorcock has put all upcoming Elric novels on hold

You make a good point. Even if this rumor is true, Chapterhouse is still not responsible. Ultimately, those decisions belong to GW, and they're the ones who are holding back the releases with some rather silly reasoning.

Kroothawk wrote:

odinsgrandson wrote:I have a second theory to posit for this situation.
What if GW's policy has not changed? Here are some past examples of this behavior:
(...)
My point is that just because GW isn't releasing some given mini doesn't mean that it is Chapterhouse's fault. Or Scibor's, Raging Heroes or anyone else's. Just because something is/would be popular doesn't mean that GW realizes this and is going to release that mini.

Well, we know that GW's policy changed dramatically end of May (the whole secrecy thing etc).
And we are not talking about miniatures never made, but miniatures ready and not released at the expected date due to a late decision).

That's true- we've seen a few changes to GW policy recently. Do we know for certain that these miniatures were actually finished and ready for release? Do we have photos of the finished minis? Honestly, I haven't been following those closely enough to say.

But the way you're describing it, it was more like the 2nd ed Squad figures (who ended up being a games day release, but GW pulled the plug before finishing the promised codex).

I'm just really used to GW releasing 80-90% of a codex, then just dropping the ball on the rest of the minis- and seemingly completely regardless of how much people want to play the rest.

I mean, I never really did get those skinks cold one riders until they were turned into sauruses. So you can see where I'm coming from.

Chimaera wrote:Why is it people still buy 40K? Maybe becuase it's an excellent quality product and like most excellent quality products they come with a price tag.

WOW. Lots of conjecture here.

People spend money on non-quality things constantly and for a variety of reasons. The world is full of examples of people spending way more money on things than they should without a concern for quality at all.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

Chimaera wrote:Why is it people still buy 40K? Maybe becuase it's an excellent quality product and like most excellent quality products they come with a price tag.

WOW. Lots of conjecture here.

People spend money on non-quality things constantly and for a variety of reasons. The world is full of examples of people spending way more money on things than they should without a concern for quality at all.

Well you tell me why GW product is so popular then. From the comments people leave on this and various other forums you would think it cannot be becuase of their keen price point, marketing strategy, release strategy, exploitation of new markets and their so called corporate greed.

Tabris_ wrote:I was just thinking.

If a given unit figures in a codex would it not be considered a character in a work of fiction and thereby copyright protected? At least if it figured in fluff text (with anyway most minis do, because they have fluffy entry). Also, would they not be protected if there is a illustration of them in the book, even if there is no model?

Because seeing in this way i could technically get, as an example, the last Song of Ice and Fire book and make a mini of a new character that appears in the given book and them sell the figure using the name of the character without risking a lawsuit and not only that but i would become owner of the concept of the character (at least when speaking about miniature figures) from there on.

It just doesn't make sense to me.

To the best of my understanding, copyright is not intended to protect much of anything beyond a specific expression. Essentially the only reason copyright protection extends beyond the exact totality of any given expression is because, throughout the application of copyright law, the Courts have had to deal with a range of questions that don't fall neatly within the limits of the copyright code. For example, it makes sense that a work would not be able to avoid infringement simply because it had "insignificant" differences. But how does one determine what an insignificant difference is? It also makes sense that a copyright holder should not be able to gain de facto control over unprotectible elements, but how does one separate what is protectible from what is not protectible while still considering a work in its entire context?

In terms of character copyrights, the issue is hotly debated to this day and various courts have used a range of methods to determine whether a character should be protectible. But this is the jumping off point: if copyright protection gives the author the exclusive right to create copies of a work, how and why should the copyright code give an author exclusive rights to something beyond the scope of the protected expression, if at all? In other words, can a single expression create more than one copyright? A protected character is a copyright beyond the scope of, and in addition to, the work in which it appears. Thus, for example, the "distinctly delineated" test (one of the methods by which courts determine if a character should be protectible). In brief, the distinctly delineated test determines whether the character is so firmly expressed in the work (or works) that it takes on an existence outside of those works and is remembered long after the specifics of the story are forgotten. There's also the "story being told" test in which the character is virtually synonymous with the story, meaning that use of the character infringes the expression as much as use of the story. Those are rather quick and dirty explanations by the way.

There are Song of Ice and Fire miniatures. I don't know whether they are officially licensed. However, most visual expressions of Gandalf that have been made since the Lord of the Rings works were published were not licensed. Most are also so varied that any rational application of copyright would not consider them to be copies of one another. Do they all infringe a Gandalf character copyright? If you think that's the way it should be, consider all of the artists that worked to create those distinct visual expressions. Should a single copyright give the author the ability to control every single one of those expressions?

You've also brought up the interesting issue of labeling vs titling. If I make a model of Jamie Lanister and sell it as a "Jamie Lanister" model, is that a trademark issue, copyright issue, both, or neither? Don't be so quick with an answer. To be a trademark issue, "Jamie Lanister" would need to be a registered mark, or a mark in use. To be a copyright issue, there would need to be a work that the model could conceivably be a copy of. One would not influence the other, by the way. And if the model was sold under the "Jamie Lanister" mark, that does not mean that the title of the work is "Jamie Lanister." The work may be untitled, or the base may be inscribed with the title "One-handed Knight." If so, with regard to a potential copyright issue, the words "Jamie Lanister" would be totally irrelevant. The only relevant issue would be whether or not the model was a copy of some other previously created work to which the author had access prior to or during the creation of the work.

You've also brought up the question of whether a work in one medium can infringe a work in another. Can a '2 dimensional' drawing be a copy of a sculpture, or vice versa? Maybe, it depends, but why is that? That's an important question. Clearly, a sculpture cannot possibly be a 100% exact copy of a drawing. It is simply physically impossible. One must then turn to "substantial similarity." Does the sculpture unfairly appropriate protected elements of the drawing without any artistically significant difference? If you think that's subjective, it certainly is. Biccat would likely say that a sculpture has been found to infringe a photograph. He would be correct. But in understanding why the judge(s) in that case found the work to infringe provides insight into how some have at one specific time and with one specific set of facts found a sculpture to infringe a photograph. Nevertheless, you would find that "substantial similarity" ultimately came down to fuzzy concepts such as what the works communicated to the viewer; the emotional impact of the works. In other words, the sculpture failed the "smell test," or as one might put it, the Potter Stewart approach was used. A read-through of the written opinion suggests that the Court was attempting to locate some way within the code to find that the sculpture was a copy of the photograph. It really was a shameless copy, there was even direct evidence of copying.

That example really only gives us a way to more emphatically say that a sculpture might infringe a drawing. In the misty nebulous of theory, it is certainly possible. And in one well-published case it actually happened. But I personally think that, even in the realm of theory, a sculpture would virtually have to set out to reproduce a drawing in order to infringe it. Otherwise, one would be hard pressed to establish substantial similarity.

But a sculpture could infringe a copyright without being a copy. It could be a derivative work. It could, for example, recast, transform, or adapt the drawing. However tantalizing it may seem to argue that a sculpture is an adaptation of a drawing, that tantalization only comes from a feeling that changing from one medium to another constitutes an adaptation. Hell, I haven't even mentioned any examples to illustrate the point. I humbly caution that this tantalizing feeling is treacherous and should be mercilessly crushed. Why should it be that something which implicitly makes copying more difficult to establish at the same time makes a finding of infringement easier on a derivative work basis? I don't think it should. One should not turn to derivative works to broaden the scope of a copyright.

You will find, I think, that within a determination of infringement via derivative work lies a remarkably similar calculus to that within a determination of copying. There must still be substantial similarity between the works, and in fact it is likely harder to find that similarity within a derivative work. But just because it is harder to find that similarity should not lead one to look less thoroughly. In other words, one should not think that because a derivative work is a new copyright, and as such there must be differences between the accused work and the allegedly infringed work, that it is acceptable to find infringement based upon less substantial similarity than one would when determining if the accused work was a copy.

In other words, you must find the root work within a derivative work in a recognizable and substantially similar form. A translation, for example, is a transformed version of a written work, but one would not argue that the root work does not exist within the translation in a recognizable and substantially similar form. Indeed, that is the goal of a successful translation. Although the text might be 100% different, what makes the work unique remains in a form that is altered as little as possible. Similarly, one would not argue that an abridgment does not contain substantial and recognizable portions of the root work that are, without a doubt, substantially similar or even wholly the same. Also consider a motion picture adaptation. If a motion picture adaptation did not reproduce the root work in a recognizable and substantially similar form, it would be a poor adaptation.

And yet with a motion picture adaptation you have an example of a change in medium. However, note that what makes the root work unique (the story from which the movie was adapted) is reproduced. If the story were significantly altered, the adaptation would be a failure. Indeed, a motion picture adaptation has much in common with a translation as well as an abridgment. The "language" in which the story is told is different and portions of it may be removed, but the core of the work is recognizable and substantially similar to the root work.

It is inherently fallacious to employ the concept of derivative works in order to argue that a work which bears passing similarity to the allegedly infringed work is infringing; to, in effect, use the concept of derivative works to argue that unprotectible elements somehow become protectible. If it is not sufficient to say that sculpture B is a copy of picture A because both are expressions of concept X, it is also not sufficient to say that sculpture B is derivative of picture A because both are expressions of concept X. In order for sculpture B to be derivative of picture A, the work would have to start with picture A and transform it into sculpture B, and that is determined by locating a significant amount of recognizable and substantially similar elements from picture A within sculpture B. Thus is the calculus virtually the same as that employed when determining if the accused work is a copy.

Saldiven wrote:Seriously. I mean, how long has it been since Chess saw a rules update or a FAQ?

It's a disgrace, I've been waiting hundreds of years for the next 'Codex: Black Pieces'.

If this question has been posed, apologies, I only read about 1/2 the thread.

What is the benefit for GW to release an updated Codex with rules for new monsters / vehicles / etc and then not (ever?) provide the model?

I can think of a few reasons, some approach genuine logic (assuming I can think like a "decision maker" for a multimillion dollar wargaming company) while others are sardonic. I'm interested in getting the opinion of other people.

It's very strange, isn't it?

It is what happens, though.

Skalk Bloodaxe wrote:What is the benefit for GW to release an updated Codex with rules for new monsters / vehicles / etc and then not (ever?) provide the model?

1.) To have a more continuous income for one army and raising new interest several times until the next Codex/armybook release.
2.) To overcome the one release per generation policy of old ("Dad, when will I get new shineys for my army?" "When you are married and have children.")
3.) To have the option to release models when they are ready, not wait 5 years for the next Codex/armybook.
4.) Maybe some units are late additions to a Codex/armybook and the 2 year production cycle for plastic kits starts late.
5.) To increase the urge for conversions and getting deeper involved in the hobby.

These are general reasons, with 1.) being the most important. This approach doesn't work though when the missing units are essential for army lists and most customers are unable to do such demanding conversions as in the case of the tervigon or the farseer council on jetbike.

I think its just because of lack of time to put out every new mini out there... On the nid dex the update with new bugs was immense and they delivered LOTS of new kits, unfortunately the codex list of new bugs was just too huge.

Skalk Bloodaxe wrote:What is the benefit for GW to release an updated Codex with rules for new monsters / vehicles / etc and then not (ever?) provide the model?

According to some strong rumour sources, they were just about to release those models. Saying they won't 'ever' release them is a bit silly. It's a symptom of their wave releasing system (which provides continual sales rather than sales bubbles around codices) and not ever telling anyone what is being worked on. If all they did was release some concept/work in progress shots and kept the player base informed, then this situation wouldn't have happened and the playerbase would be a lot happier.

-Loki- wrote:According to some strong rumour sources, they were just about to release those models. Saying they won't 'ever' release them is a bit silly.

It wasn't a question directed at this specific release, it was a question about decades of business practice. 'Ever' had quotations and a question mark on it for a reason. They *may* eventually get around to it. Like Huron Blackheart. Published in 1996, released in 2007.

Special characters have always been, well, special in this regard. They get released if they will sell.

The vast majority of units, again as said with exceptions to Eldar and Orks which always seem to be missing something, get released, either through GW or FW conversion kits. Wave releasing is new to GW, and they're not good at it, which is why we are seeing gaping holes in 5th edition.

-Loki- wrote:It's a symptom of their wave releasing system (which provides continual sales rather than sales bubbles around codices) and not ever telling anyone what is being worked on. If all they did was release some concept/work in progress shots and kept the player base informed, then this situation wouldn't have happened and the playerbase would be a lot happier.

It's a good idea that they just seem to implement badly. The troughs of their 'wave releases' are so wide that instead of bubbles around codices, they just have bubbles around release waves... if a 3rd party doesn't step in and make the model in the interim.

Even if they did release concept work and spread preview and teaser info like... every other gaming company out there, if it takes literally years between codex and model release, they'll still have the same problems.