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.

I understand that GW are currently going through the courts with a case against Chapterhouse based on the fact that the latter openly make and sell components marketed as being intended to be used with GW products; I haven't been able to digest the contents of the threads surrounding the issue and so I have no opinion on the rights or wrongs of either company.

But as I recently started to get into non-fictional military modelling, it took me by some surprise to learn that post production kits maufactured by third parties and intended to be used on products produced by other manufacturers are very commonplace and there seems to be no issue surrounding this fact as there is with GW.

Take this kit produced by Plus Model for example:

http://www.modelhobbies.co.uk/shop/plus-model-sdkfz-2509-conversion-p-7412.html

It's intended to be used on a Tamiya kit and the product description says as much right out in the open.

What I'm interested in is the reason that this seems to be normal in the non-GW world and grounds for a lawsuit in it.

Is this a simple matter of there being different rules for original IP and models of real world vehicles not falling under the same rules?

Is a GW Rhino APC different from a Tamiya model of a King Tiger because the former was the original creation of GW?

Someone at Tamiya sat down and designed the components and moulds for the Kign Tiger just as someone did at GW for the Rhino, so what is the fundamental difference?

I'm not trying to paint GW as the villains here, I'm genuinely interested to hear if anyone knows the reason for this and what opinions on the matter are.

GW is the fundamental difference. They don't like people playing with their toys.

Military equipment is public domain, as the military cannot protect it.

What you'll notice is that in many cases, small bits and pieces of the Tamiya King Tiger kit will be different than the Dragon King Tiger kit so that they do not mix 100%.

Carmine the Wolf wrote:Is a GW Rhino APC different from a Tamiya model of a King Tiger because the former was the original creation of GW?

Yes.

Someone at Tamiya sat down and designed the components and moulds for the Kign Tiger just as someone did at GW for the Rhino, so what is the fundamental difference?

Tamiya own their interpretation, their moulds, but not the image. They can't stop other people making models of King Tigers, they don't own them. There are some cases where military manufacturers have taken a dislike towards model kit companies making their models, but most don't care or even encourage it. Also, some historical vehicles would be very hard to work out who owns the rights. What someone can't do is recast a Tamiya kit.

A Rhino is something created by GW, it's arguably unique both in design and moulding. Reproducing either is likely an infringement of some sort. The difference with chapterhouse is that they don't produce complete kits but supplementary ones, and they alter the designs, they don't reproduce GW kits.

As for companies that make resin parts for Tamiya and Dragon kits, these companies don't mind about the 3rd Party. They can't stop someone making an alternative Sherman turret. If that person then suggests you use a tamiya kit to do it then why would they complain? That means that many military modellers buy two kits. And furthermore, should Tamiya release that variant in plastic many modellers will go out and buy it for a third time because it's easier to make than resin.

The big difference is that Tamiya/MPC/Ertl/etc. did not invent their models, they are copies of real world things that they have been licensed to recreate in scale. They did not develop the Dodge Charger, the Willys Jeep, or the King Tiger. Games Workshop did invent the Rhino, Land Raider, etc. They should have the right to protect their copyrighted materials from being copied and forged. However, they should be looking at licensing the right to making upgrade parts, like shoulder pads and the like, when they don't make them themselves. However, in this day and age, if the response isn't extreme, it doesn't make it big enough. A moderate reaction would benefit both parties...

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:The big difference is that Tamiya/MPC/Ertl/etc. did not invent their models, they are copies of real world things that they have been licensed to recreate in scale. They did not develop the Dodge Charger, the Willys Jeep, or the King Tiger. Games Workshop did invent the Rhino, Land Raider, etc. They should have the right to protect their copyrighted materials from being copied and forged. However, they should be looking at licensing the right to making upgrade parts, like shoulder pads and the like, when they don't make them themselves. However, in this day and age, if the response isn't extreme, it doesn't make it big enough. A moderate reaction would benefit both parties...

They have the right to protect their copyrighted materials from being copied and forged, no one is questioning that and no one has infringed in that (except some Chinese companies). What they don't have the right is in telling people that they can't develop their own original and copyrighted materials just because those things can be used with GW kits.

There are millions of examples of stuff like this happening, and like Howard A Treesong said, why would the original manufacturers have a problem with this if it means that they will also sell more models / cars / iPads / whatever? The answer is that no one does, except GW...

No use arguing the point Carmine
I came into gaming with some experience in scale aviation modelling and was surprised at GW's stance. Have argued about this myself and it falls on deaf ears.

The GW brand is sacrosanct and none shall profain ther holy products. They shall abide in the protection of faith in their IP

Thanks for the responses.

TBH: those are the reasons that I thought the issue broke down the way it does:

GW stuff is unique, therefore protected under IP.

Actual models of real world hardware are not, and even when the specific model manufacturer's stuff is the subject of a conversion kit the industry attitude is not to kick up a fuss as it still requires the purchase of an original product and the manufacturer is not making the components in the kit themselves.

I understand the stance GW take towards their IP, it's just a shame when some of the stuff that companies like Chapterhouse are producing are so close to the stuff people wish GW were.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:No use arguing the point Carmine
I came into gaming with some experience in scale aviation modelling and was surprised at GW's stance. Have argued about this myself and it falls on deaf ears.

The GW brand is sacrosanct and none shall profain ther holy products. They shall abide in the protection of faith in their IP

Having come the other way my surprise was equal but opposite in nature!

I'm not arguing against GW in this, they have the right to be as tough as they want; it just seems that they take an execptionally strong stance when as many have pointed out there is so much stuff in the fluff that they do not, have not and probably will never touch upon.

Personally I think that bitz makers like Maxmini and Scibor have the right idea: make the stuff but be smart about the description.

Conversion pieces for GW models still require GW models just the same.

The actual subject maybe in public domain but they are still occassionally protected by the manufacturers.

The kits themselves are also protected. Means nothing that for example the IP to a F-35 belongs to Lockheed Martin, if Tamiya produce a kit, the kit's IP is with Tamiya.
If I make a correction part in resin for sale for that kit, it gets specified on the packaging that is the kit it is intended for. I would have to have measured the kit for the parts to fit.
There is no difference other than a cultural one, whereby the practice of converting with AM parts is widely accepted by the scale modelling community, and contested by part of the gaming community.

Edit:
And I will never understand that view.
Call a spade a spade. We all know the intended purpose of the Scribor parts for example. It ain't for use with Lego bricks or Halo figures.
GW have a right to protect IP where it will detract from their business. As above, you need the GW figures to convert so shoulder pads won't affect GW sales.

In Fantasy and SciFi, everyone is inspired by what has been done before. You rarely find genuinely new ideas, mostly it is just a new mix of existing ideas and designs. GW designers do the same.

GW managers and lawyers don't understand this and the nature of IP laws and try to stop everyone from being inspired by collegues and trying to stop third market products. US judges are currently trying to teach GW lawyers the basics of IP law.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Conversion pieces for GW models still require GW models just the same.

There is no difference other than a cultural one, whereby the practice of converting with AM parts is widely accepted by the scale modelling community, and contested by part of the gaming community.

Call a spade a spade. We all know the intended purpose of the Scribor parts for example.

It depresses me to admit that the cultural difference that you mention there is the same one that has been causing me to feel so much more free and actually passionate about the modelling aspect of the hobby as I've got more and more into the scale modelling community as well.

As soon as Scibor etal can call their flat-headed digging tool a spade without getting a GW planetkiller lawsuit they unfortunately have to keep their heads inside the bunker along with everyone else.

Actually the static model industry is not without its IP problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_model

Click on the header for #7 issues.

I remember reading about this a couple years ago with companies like Lockheed threatening to shut down the plastic model market unless they got royalties. I had not heard about the licensing of RAF decals though.

There was some ruckus over the use of the term 'willy's jeep' because of some protection by the manufacturer.

In completely the other way I've been told that years ago Saab supplied a company, maybe Heller, with detailed info on their aircraft to make kits, but the condition was that they make a lot of different kits and not just a handful of popular ones. Saab (IIRC) wanted lots of kits of their aircraft to be made if they were going to cooperate and help the kit company make accurate models.