Chapterhouse being sued?

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.

**Father Gabe**

Delephont wrote:
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Captain

You are of course correct in the assertrion that the monopoly is with the games created by GW.
I think this in part leads to some misunderstandings.

No one surely is suggesting that GW games can be freely copied and marketed. Scribor make shoulder pads and we all know what they are for. They are not 28mm Joan Collins accessories

It is no big deal if CH say these shoulder pads are for SM's imho. We all know that. By preventing companies making accessories then GW are in my book attempting to stifle free trade and enforce a strngle hold.

What? Of course its a big deal. GW isn't saying that a company can't produce shoulder pads, or any other item for fitting to miniatures, I believe GW only has issues with companies using its trademarked names and I.P to induce advertising benefits. If a company says its making generic shoulder pads, it will get substantially less hits on an internet search then a company that states clearly it is making bits for WH40K and Space Marines.

How can you not see that point? It has nothing to do with free trade? Stifling Free Trade would be GW attempting to shut down any company making a Sci Fi game of any type....or trying to prevent any other company producing a Fantasy Game that uses Orcs, or Eleves, or Dwarfs etc....which is clearly not what they're trying to do.

I have to agree here, it is a big point. CH crossed the line by including GW IP. Scribor and Micro Art produce similar products that "could" be used for GW products, however, they dont advertise with GW models nor say that it is designed for Rhino's or Space Marines. CH could have easily skirted the legal problems if they would have just followed the law.

**deejaybainbridge**

Overnight the wording of the website has changed, and is proberley in the process of having all GW protected terms removed and replaced with wording such as Space Elves.

GW are trying to protect their IP by stopping third party companys riding on their protected terms, and why not, you have the right to protect the interests of your compnay and it's products.

Now i agree a company the size of GW throwing the book at a small company with two guys who started in a garage looks like bullying tactics, but if they dont act now that company could grow several others would crop up and GW would have left it to late to defend their IP.

Can't help but feel that had the wording been correct from the start this may well have never happened.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

Captain
you are missing the point
The accessories are what I am talking about are still valid
in my humble opinion

this is why it is ultimately no big deal
in my humble opinion.

It purely opens up possibilities of choice for how people model their figures.
The problem is the way GW jealously interpret and enforce IP. According to them as I understand the FAQ on their website, I am not even allowed to reproduce my own stuff for myself.
The problem is if I am having to make 30 shoulder pads for an army conversion, it is impractical to scratch them individually.
Yet the same website tells me it is "cool" to be creative and make conversions and fluff.
They also state that what CH are doing for example is not "hobby". I would claim that it is perfectly acceptable as part of the hobby to make conversion sets available, if that is what people want.
GW protecting their interests is fine, but telling me what is part of the hobby or not is unacceptable.

What is the difference between stating what the shoulder pads, for example, can be used for and not.
When I see Scribors excellent "Angel Shoulder Pads" I am in little doubt what they are intended for.
CH are simply calling a spade a spade. I can't think of what else Scribor's pads would be used for other than GW SM's.
Someone will doubtless come up with an alternative, but the general point holds true.
http://sciborminiatures.com/en_,shop.php?art=1018
FWIW am not having a go at Scribor, but am seeing Captain Jack posting on the Scribor release thread

Those Egyptian bases are perfect for the S Wolves force I'm trying desperately not to buy

Fine but I still fail to understand the difference is anything significant.
You may choose to disagree but the net outcome is identicle.

**insaniak**

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:According to them as I understand the FAQ on their website, I am not even allowed to reproduce my own stuff for myself.

For what it's worth, in many countries (and I'm pretty sure the UK is one of them) that's not just GW saying so... that's how the law actually works.

They also state that what CH are doing for example is not "hobby".

Under the normal definition of the word, it's not. Once you're doing something specifically to make money from it, it's a business, not a hobby.

GW protecting their interests is fine, but telling me what is part of the hobby or not is unacceptable.

They're not telling you what is and is not a part of the hobby. They're simply placing rules on what can be produced for their own games. Which they have the legal right to do as the creator of those games. That's what IP laws are for.

**Ouze**

Manchu wrote:Whenever I start to imagine I learned nothing in law school and that basically anyone could be a lawyer, one of these threads comes around and I feel a lot better.

Then why don't you guys simply lock these threads, instead of sitting back and having a laugh at the expense of the peasants?

At least half of this thread has been populated with smug comments about how ignorant all the wannabe lawyers are. Of course, If you were to peruse all the CH threads going back, of course, you'd see a lot of those very same holier-then-thou voices were telling all the armchair attorneys in superior tones how obvious it was that they weren't infringing GWS IP, and how they had consulted a lawyer, and how saying that calling into question their legitimacy was essentially trolling.

**RiTides**

This thread has been surprisingly civil, for the most part, imho...

DeadlyFungi wrote:After reading that Torah of text (which has been very interesting), I'm surprised that not one person has mentioned what to me, is the most analogous precedent in relation to this situation.
The Atari debacle of the 80's...
I know I'm dating myself here, but long story short...
Atari developed a home video game console, the dominant in the market. Some small upstarts like the newly formed "Activision" began to develop, and manufacture games for this popular console. Atari took them to court (I don't admittedly know what happened...I was eight, and I'm giving the abridged version). After all, what right did these guys have to develop a product on the backs of Atari's hard work, and product? Atari lost...and what happened? Every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" started making crap games to cash in on this silicon "gold rush"...soon the marketplace was saturated with "pants" games. Consumer faith in the quality of the product was dented severely, and the video game market crashed, and took Atari with it.
But for the Yin, now the Yang...
For years the videogame industry languished..then a silly Japanese company, Nintendo, developed a console, and an idea.They developed the hardware, a majority of software, and "licensed" the rights to develop titles under their strict supervision, and quality control. Everyone was happy...yet what did it yield? An industry full of competitiveness, and creativity we see today in said industry.
Mind, I'm interested to see where this all goes between CH and GW, I don't have a particular opinion. I find these parallels pretty historically striking, and I'm curious how this will all go down in our modern era given the clout corporations have. The point I was loosely trying to make is that whatever the outcome, and it may blow up in our face, however, the nature of our hobby will survive, adapt, and change. It's something GW would do right by learning.
/rant

I thought this was a neat post!

**Ouze**

RiTides wrote:I thought this was a neat post!

If you thought that was neat, you should read about how Sony wanted to collaborate on making a cd-rom based system for Nintendo after the Super Nintendo. Nintendo agreed to that, and then publicly insulted Sony. Sony took their project and figured hey, why not finish it ourselves? And hence, the Playstation was born, and drank Nintendo's milkshake for nearly the next 20 years.

**RiTides**

I have to say I'm a little skeptical of that... everything I've owned for Sony has been proprietary (even the phone I had used their own version of micro SD, instead of the standard one). Not to say it isn't true, however! Just never heard of it...

/off-topic

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

Insaniak

The wording implies accessorising is not part of the hobby.
I would argue that the ability to purchase conversion pieces is very much part of the hobby.

It is also implicit that if I make a set of conversion pieces for myself by creating a mould, that is also unacceptable.
Again I would disagree.

You are confusing producing accessories as a business with customer usage of those accessories.

As I have said before there are various facets of the hobby, principally gaming and the modelling. The gaming aspect is somewhat different. GW tells me that it is "cool" to customise, but also tell me it is technically illegal.
I get the impression that GW are unable to synthesise the various aspects of industry, business and hobby and understand the implications for the customer.

Why are GW trying to protect their IP?
Not to lose sales and maintain credability of their product seems to be the consensus.
If I buy a bunch of SM's and make my own chapter (endoresed by GW in their own literature) it ought then be up to me how I go about doing that.

If I have insufficient time and/or skill to create my own customised pieces then the alternative s are to accet the figures out of the box, or get the parts from an aftermarket supplier.

**Captain Jack**

@Ouze - Because this thread (apart from the obvious boring trolling) is a pretty good discusion. People are always going to have differing opinions despite the law, especially when there is a language/cultural devide. This one has kept it's head above water well, and I'm enjoying seeing what others think.

However, @Chibli - I don't get what you're implying. Yes I buy aftermarket pieces, the point being that Egyptian style bases have no connection with GW IP, whereas I wouldn't buy a Space Wolf shoulder pad from CH because that is a blatant abuse of GW IP to me.

The problem is in language and labeling, as was brought up earlier in the thread just by changing the way something is described is enough to save you issues. It is also of interest to me that after all the boasting of legal sanctity CH has started changing the website. This is something that other manufacturers that have chosen to make parts, for GW kits, that are imidiately distictive from GW IP and have not so far had to budge an inch.

I do buy aftermarket parts, have a look in my gallery. I do buy from small miniature companies, have a look in my gallery. I do have a problem with companies that make fake or unlicenced repro gear and use the reputaion of another to sell their wares, to make money for themselves.

If there are companies out there that want to make 40k stuff fine. Speak to GW and prove to them that your worthy of a licence and not face all this legal malarky, if not then take a page from succesfull little companies and come up with your own ideas. Thats what bugs me.

Again, my own thoughts to add to the discussion

**Kanluwen**

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Insaniak

The wording implies accessorising is not part of the hobby.
I would argue that the ability to purchase conversion pieces is very much part of the hobby.

It is also implicit that if I make a set of conversion pieces for myself by creating a mould, that is also unacceptable.
Again I would disagree.

You are confusing producing accessories as a business with customer usage of those accessories.

And you're confusing the terminology. GW does not want you casting conversion pieces/accessories for your own use if they are made using the original GW part.
If you were to sculpt a piece that fits onto a GW shoulderpad and recast it in numbers to fit on all your Marines, then that would be acceptable.
It would not, according to GW, be acceptable to sculpt the piece onto the GW shoulderpad, and then recast it like that.

As I have said before there are various facets of the hobby, principally gaming and the modelling. The gaming aspect is somewhat different. GW tells me that it is "cool" to customise, but also tell me it is technically illegal.

So there's a gaming factor that requires you to have custom shoulderpads? I don't buy that.

I get the impression that GW are unable to synthesise the various aspects of industry, business and hobby and understand the implications for the customer.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

Why are GW trying to protect their IP?
Not to lose sales and maintain credibility of their product seems to be the consensus.
If I buy a bunch of SM's and make my own chapter (endorsed by GW in their own literature) it ought then be up to me how I go about doing that.

And it is. The only caveat is you can't recast/reproduce anything you produced by simply modifying a GW design.

If I have insufficient time and/or skill to create my own customised pieces then the alternatives are to accept the figures out of the box, or get the parts from an aftermarket supplier.

Or utilize preexisting bits available in other kits, Forge World, GW conversion kits, etc.

It's not as simple as you're making it out to be. It's not just "vanilla" and "aftermarket supplier".

**Polonius**

Ouze wrote:
Manchu wrote:Whenever I start to imagine I learned nothing in law school and that basically anyone could be a lawyer, one of these threads comes around and I feel a lot better.

Then why don't you guys simply lock these threads, instead of sitting back and having a laugh at the expense of the peasants?

At least half of this thread has been populated with smug comments about how ignorant all the wannabe lawyers are. Of course, If you were to peruse all the CH threads going back, of course, you'd see a lot of those very same holier-then-thou voices were telling all the armchair attorneys in superior tones how obvious it was that they weren't infringing GWS IP, and how they had consulted a lawyer, and how saying that calling into question their legitimacy was essentially trolling.

I don't know if I'm one of the smug voices now or then, but core issue is that nobody knows if CH is infringing on IP, because there is no case law on point here. (and isn't saying "at least half" a bit of an overstatement?) It's also worth pointing out that the facts have changed over the years. Initially they made accessories, now they make nearly complete conversion kits marketed using trademarks.

Believe it or not, some of us deal with legal matters for a living. So yeah, when people are completely incorrect about the substantce, scope, and procedure of the legal system, we sometimes drop some knowledge on them. I don't need to wave my license around to prove my point (as it's hanging on my wall), but the bulk of comments in this thread are based, at best, no a complete lack of knowledge of the field. At worst, their based on a completely incorrect understanding of the law.

I'm also confused at the moral outrage persent in this thread. I'm not saying there isn't a moral component to IP. Direct duping, or complete copies, are morally wrong. this case is in a real grey area, as it involves designs inspired, but not directly copied; or else it involves essentially saying "hey, when you buy that box of GW brand Space Marines, you can add our components!" I don't see either as particularly immoral, and there is some genuine controversy over whehter it is illegal.

**Captain Jack**

@Polonius - No problem, TBH I'm glad that someone with a legal basis is willing to give an insight. The moral thing is down to each persons opinion, and for the most part this debate has been a good one.

Thanks again

**Kroothawk**

Polonius wrote:I don't know if I'm one of the smug voices now or then, but core issue is that nobody knows if CH is infringing on IP, because there is no case law on point here. (and isn't saying "at least half" a bit of an overstatement?) It's also worth pointing out that the facts have changed over the years. Initially they made accessories, now they make nearly complete conversion kits marketed using trademarks.

Are you trying to taint this thread with facts and sound reasoning?

Apart from legal and moral issues, there is also another component to consider: The effect on "the hobby". Most people are not aware of the aftermarket for GW products, but some are and enjoy it as enriching "the hobby". GW lawyers see this aftermarket as damaging GW's reputation and hunt those down as lowly criminals. Those lawyers have as much competence in "the hobby" as the GW management coming from the shampoo industry. But branding conversions as "IP violations that currently are not sued when done privately" has negative effects on "the hobby" and GWs reputation as a company for a creative hobby. This "don't tell anybody if you are creative" aspect is counterproductive to the carefree toy soldier setting. Creativity shouldnt have the taint of illegality.

I am aware that doing conversions privately or as a business is something different, and being close to or independent of GW's IP is also important. But GW apparently wants to shut down CHapterhouse as a whole, even obviously independent designs, so I see it as a general attack of the aftermarket. And GW is in no legal position to prohibit an aftermarket per se, even when they obviously think they are.

**Corrode**

As a bit of a tangent on the 'damaging profits' angle, I think it's worth having a bit of a look at not just the products sold, but the presentation of said. I'm not talking about the 'for Eldar!' aspect of it all, but the actual photos of stuff.

Using this as a reference:

http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/component/virtuemart/?page=shop.browse&category_id=20

Compare those photos to literally anything on the GW site. The paintjobs on the CH stuff are tabletop-quality if we're being charitable, the pieces are badly posed and poorly lit (nevermind the crap sculpting on that hammer head), and several pictures are out of focus. It looks like a bad eBay auction. If GW are claiming that the products could be confused with their own, then it wouldn't be a stretch to also claim that the hideously unprofessional presentation of CH's products (especially as compared to their own well-painted and professionally-photographed stuff) is damaging to them.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

Kanwulen
Having stated my opinions I am not going to go over them all again.
If people don't agree too bad.
I am yet to be convinced that CH are doing anything to harm GW or the hobby in general.

Rather than being confused over the terms I am fully aware of them. I am just not convinced that GW's stance is fully coherent given the various aspects of the business.

As I am also aware that I would not be adding anything further to the discussion it is time to bow out

Thank you all for keeping it civil on the whole.
Just hope there is some amicable solution in the offing for all parties involved.

**Sheck2**

theharrower wrote:
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.

I do not think it will go down like that as CH lawyers should show photos of car parts, clothing, food, toys (e.g. Legos and the other three 'knock' off companies those of us who have small children buy), etc. side by side and ask the same questions. Then they'll describe the monopolist policies of GW (which BTW I completely understand - I'd do the same if I were them) and talk about a foreign competitor trying to squash good old american capitalism.

In the end, it will end up being a debate without a jury about legal wording betwen a bunch of lawyers trying to constrict or expand commerce laws. I think the current laws do cover this.

**Gibbsey**

dietrich wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:
dietrich wrote:
Gibbsey wrote:Wendy's and Burger king dont sell McDoubles's for a reason

But they all sell burgers, chicken sandwiches, salads, fries, and soda.

Wow you missed that point.....

Are all double cheeseburgers McDoubles? Does someone market, "our burgers are just like a McDouble"? No, it's about offering choices and variety. Could McDonald's complain if I took my McDouble home and put bbq sauce on it?

Hey look whats over there... =>

MY POINT

My point was that wendy's and burger king Cannot sell a cheeseburger named a McDouble they can sell cheeseburgers and call them "Free Puppies" for all McDonalds cares

Edited to remove the gaucheness - Lorek

**Polonius**

I'm not an expert on anti-trust or monopoly law, but GW doesn't have anything approaching a monopoly. Any claims leveled along those grounds would be laughed out of court. Yes, GW has a monopoly on selling products for GW games, but their market is miniatuares wargaming, in which GW probably barely has a majority share.

**Fishboy**

Kanluwen wrote:
Fishboy wrote:
No, there hasn't. In fact, that's partially why everyone here was whining so much about the Stormraven. It looked nothing like the conversions people were doing.

Uh...yeah there has...look at the Nurgle Demon Prince for 40K. IIRC that was actually a golden demon entry as well....

And the sculptor(Seb Perbert) was compensated for it, along with when it was first released him being given a whole multi-page master-class article about how he painted it and what gave him the idea for it. I think he was even hired on full-time as a sculptor because of that model.

So yeah. You were saying?

Wow...miss one day and the posts get to 16 pages hehe. I am sure if GW offered to compensate Nick and CH he would be happy to oblige. Instead they have opted to work against him and the community yet again. You made a blatent comment stating that GW "never" used someones conversion

There have been cases where GW has taken custom models from players....Stormraven and Exorcist.

No, there hasn't. In fact, that's partially why everyone here was whining so much about the Stormraven. It looked nothing like the conversions people were doing.

So my point was made!

**Ian Sturrock**

Games Workshop sell art, in the form of beautifully sculpted plastic components that are inherently designed to be used creatively to make new art by their purchasers. Games Workship encourage their purchasers to incorporate other materials into that art, as artists always have done (whether it's twigs and cork on a base or scratch-built deodorant bottle skimmers). Games Workshop then try to claim intellectual property ownership of the finished art piece, because it incorporates some of their art too... this case has at least as many parallels with music business sampling and mash-ups as it does with auto parts.

The big difference here is that GW encourages you to use their product to create brand new art. It's a bit like a musician who produces an album called "Samples and Sound Effects for You To Use To Create Your Own Music" and then in the small print points out that although the samples and sound effects provided are intended for you to create your own music, doing so is technically illegal!

**Gibbsey**

Ian Sturrock wrote:Games Workshop sell art, in the form of beautifully sculpted plastic components that are inherently designed to be used creatively to make new art by their purchasers. Games Workship encourage their purchasers to incorporate other materials into that art, as artists always have done (whether it's twigs and cork on a base or scratch-built deodorant bottle skimmers). Games Workshop then try to claim intellectual property ownership of the finished art piece, because it incorporates some of their art too... this case has at least as many parallels with music business sampling and mash-ups as it does with auto parts.

The big difference here is that GW encourages you to use their product to create brand new art. It's a bit like a musician who produces an album called "Samples and Sound Effects for You To Use To Create Your Own Music" and then in the small print points out that although the samples and sound effects provided are intended for you to create your own music, doing so is technically illegal!

Bad analogy is bad

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?community=&catId=&categoryId=&pIndex=3&aId=3900002&start=4

**Ian Sturrock**

Gibbsey, you'll need to explain why you think it's a bad analogy, rather than just providing a link to GW's IP page, which I have read many times...

**Gibbsey**

Ian Sturrock wrote:Gibbsey, you'll need to explain why you think it's a bad analogy, rather than just providing a link to GW's IP page, which I have read many times...

Well that completely ignored the whole point of fair use...

also this isnt about a single person, this is about another company selling product specifically for 40k.

**Ian Sturrock**

"Fair use" is when you comment, critique, review, or do academic work on copyright material -- it has nothing to do with creating new art.

**Kanluwen**

Fishboy wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Fishboy wrote:
No, there hasn't. In fact, that's partially why everyone here was whining so much about the Stormraven. It looked nothing like the conversions people were doing.

Uh...yeah there has...look at the Nurgle Demon Prince for 40K. IIRC that was actually a golden demon entry as well....

And the sculptor(Seb Perbert) was compensated for it, along with when it was first released him being given a whole multi-page master-class article about how he painted it and what gave him the idea for it. I think he was even hired on full-time as a sculptor because of that model.

So yeah. You were saying?

Wow...miss one day and the posts get to 16 pages hehe. I am sure if GW offered to compensate Nick and CH he would be happy to oblige. Instead they have opted to work against him and the community yet again.

No, they opted to work against him. Not the community.

You made a blatant comment stating that GW "never" used someones conversion

There have been cases where GW has taken custom models from players....Stormraven and Exorcist.

No, there hasn't. In fact, that's partially why everyone here was whining so much about the Stormraven. It looked nothing like the conversions people were doing.

So my point was made!

I made the statement that GW doesn't take custom models from players. Your statement implies that they took it without providing compensation.

Purchasing the sculpt from the original owner, and crediting him, isn't that.
So...no, your point wasn't made.

Ian Sturrock wrote:Gibbsey, you'll need to explain why you think it's a bad analogy, rather than just providing a link to GW's IP page, which I have read many times...

He meant your analogy is bad because it's not illegal for you to create your own conversions or even cast up your own crafted things for conversions for personal use.

Once you get beyond personal use and begin selling the items, if they contain parts that are not of your own design and you didn't pay for the right to use those parts, that's when it becomes illegal.

**Chapterhouse**

Found this article this morning. If you can understand the legal wording, it does give explanation to "Fair Use" and "Nominal Use" which will be important in this case-situation.

http://www.nmmlaw.com/pdf/highcourt.pdf

**Ouze**

Fishboy wrote:Wow...miss one day and the posts get to 16 pages hehe. I am sure if GW offered to compensate Nick and CH he would be happy to oblige. Instead they have opted to work against him and the community yet again.

GWS doesn't see them as "the community". They see them as "the enemy". Yes, I know you and I both understand that they could have probably paid these guys a comparative pittance to make licensed work which would have expanded the hobby some and we'd have had some new neat stuff. That doesn't even occur to them.

You see: A customer buys a box of marines for $35 and 10 shoudlerpads for $10 from CHS. Everyone's a winner.

They see: A enemy\customer bought a box of marines for $35, and then spent $10 elsewhere they could have spent with us. If we destroy them, we can have $45.

**MagickalMemories**

Gibbsey wrote:Wow you missed that point.....

Gibbsey, give me more credit (and not so much to yourself). Just because I ignored your point doesn't mean I missed it.
I think you just missed mine.

**Gibbsey**

Ian Sturrock wrote:"Fair use" is when you comment, critique, review, or do academic work on copyright material -- it has nothing to do with creating new art.

Not necissarily

Fair Dealing wrote:1.The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that "these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users' rights." In particular, the Court gave a "a large and liberal interpretation" to the notion of research, stating that "lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research".
2.The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after being used? What is the general practice in the industry?
3.The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing as there would not be copyright infringement at all. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing. The amount of the work taken must be fair in light of the purpose of the dealing.
4.Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available to the user? Was the dealing "reasonably necessary to achieve the ultimate purpose"?
5.The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work "in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work - one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair."
6.Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? "Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair."

GW Legal wrote:
Accordingly, you can do quite a lot of things with our intellectual property without having a formal license with us (see the Specific Examples section below for more details on what you can do with our intellectual property), but there are also some general principles that you need to keep in mind, and then there are the things that you definitely cannot do.

PLEASE NOTE that any work you create using our intellectual property is not "owned" by you. It is called a "derivative work" and those parts based upon our IP do not give rise to their own copyright. Please bear this in mind when using our IP.

So, If you are using or want to use our intellectual property and you do not have a written license with us, you must not:

- Use Games Workshop's intellectual property in relation to any commercial activity this includes, for example, paying a printer to print some flyers for you, obtaining sponsorship, or selling non-Games Workshop materials using our trademarks.

- Make any direct copies and/or scans of Games Workshop publications, images, or other materials. This includes any Out-o- Production materials, web site materials, and White Dwarf articles. We would however suggest that you produce your own materials (as long as you follow the other requirements of this policy).

- Use our trademarks in respect of your domain name.

- Use our intellectual property in relation to any third party products or third party intellectual property.

- Alter our trademarks in any way.

- Use any of our IP without appropriately crediting the IP and using the appropriate disclaimers in accordance with this policy (see below).

- Create, distribute, or use any material that is not consistent with the functionality, atmosphere, and parameters of the Warhammer universe as created and owned by Games Workshop

- State that anything that you create using Games Workshop's intellectual property is "official."

- Create, distribute, or use any material that is derogatory, obscene, or offensive.

- Create, distribute, or use any material that devalues any Games Workshop product in any way.

Conversions

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.
Your conversions should be one-time, unique masterpieces of hobby goodness. Do not create a production run of conversions for sale. Whilst infringing our IP, this is also simply not hobby.
Casting

Do not cast any materials that are based upon Games Workshop material. Games Workshop has to maintain a strict policy on this to fight counterfeiters. We would also remind you that reproduction for personal use is NOT an automatic exclusion in respect of copyright protection in many territories worldwide.