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.

Kanluwen wrote: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.

GW's IP page is very, very unclear as to what's illegal and what's not, though, and the conversions part is probably the most schizophrenic part of the page, as many people have remarked on before:

"Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement."

What does that mean, exactly? Far as I can tell, they're saying that despite encouraging their you to create new art with the stuff they sell you, they want you to recognise that doing so is technically illegal... plus, of course, they want to provide you with strict rules as to how you can and can't create new art, despite any new art you create being technically illegal. "It's OK to infringe our IP, as long as you do it this way." As soon as you say "It's OK to infringe our IP," though -- aren't you failing to defend your IP?

As others have pointed out, the problem here is that the situation isn't cut and dried. We can draw analogies from auto parts or the art world (the latter is more relevant, as far as I can see), but they're only analogies -- none of us can do much more than guess at which way the case will pan out.

MagickalMemories wrote:

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.

So instead of missing my point, you ignored it entirely and brought up a completely different one with no relation that i agree with (that yes other companies can sell burgers)?

Well then congratulations... i guess

Gibbsey wrote: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

If you want to continue this analogy, it's more like McDonald's saying that I can't scrape off their ketchup and put on bbq sauce. CH isn't selling full models labeled as Space Marines. They're selling add-ons for kits made by GW.

Incidentally, while GW's IP page is a fascinating insight into the company, it won't necessarily stand up in court, and some aspects of it could potentially bite them in the ass in court.

It's fairly common for IP owners to make grandiose and sweeping claims as to what can and can't be done with their IP, and as to what precisely they do and don't claim ownership of, but whether a court will agree with them is quite another matter. Clearly GW think that bringing this case is strategically useful to them (whether to tie up Chapterhouse in red tape, or to actually win the case), but a ruling against them could render half the stuff on their Legal page irrelevant.

Ouze wrote:

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.

My understanding (to the original quote describing the Atari/Video Game crash of the 80's) was that Nintendo had properitary rights to the catridge their games were made in. As such, you had to buy the cartridge from Nintendo if you wanted to make a game, giving Nintendo some level of quality control.

I'm not sure there's an equivilant here.

Using my very limited understand of the law, I think CH shot themselves in the foot when they started making conversion kits for unreleased models using Trademarked names.

To use their analogy of "after market parts", its fine for a company to produce/sell/advertise parts compatable with another company's car in the after-market. You want a non-Honda brand ligth bulb for your Civic? Sure, that's dandy.

At the same time, if Chevy announces a new model of car (let's call it the Tervigon) for 2011 and gives its tech specs (i.e. - its "rules"), I can imagine a company getting in trouble for advertising a kit to "upgrade your 2010 Charger to a 2011 Tervigon". If the OEM manufacturer had simply said "upgrade kit for a 2010 Charger to add X horsepower, new radio, etc etc etc", they'd probably OK.

I know that's splitting hairs and doesn't feel especially honest at the street level, but that's my very, very basic understanding of the facts here. More informed legal opinions may give better mileage.

FWIW, its sad to see CH get hit, but I'm not terribly surprised.

Ian Sturrock wrote:

Kanluwen wrote: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.

GW's IP page is very, very unclear as to what's illegal and what's not, though, and the conversions part is probably the most schizophrenic part of the page, as many people have remarked on before:

"Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement."

What does that mean, exactly? Far as I can tell, they're saying that despite encouraging their you to create new art with the stuff they sell you, they want you to recognise that doing so is technically illegal... plus, of course, they want to provide you with strict rules as to how you can and can't create new art, despite any new art you create being technically illegal. "It's OK to infringe our IP, as long as you do it this way." As soon as you say "It's OK to infringe our IP," though -- aren't you failing to defend your IP?

As others have pointed out, the problem here is that the situation isn't cut and dried. We can draw analogies from auto parts or the art world (the latter is more relevant, as far as I can see), but they're only analogies -- none of us can do much more than guess at which way the case will pan out.

Personal use falls under "fair use" / "fair dealing", mass producing and selling a kit does not. Conversions are only a risk to GW IP if there is another company, their Conversion section is pointing out that their designs/ artwork belong to them and there are limits to what you can do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dietrich wrote:

Gibbsey wrote: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

If you want to continue this analogy, it's more like McDonald's saying that I can't scrape off their ketchup and put on bbq sauce. CH isn't selling full models labeled as Space Marines. They're selling add-ons for kits made by GW.

...*sigh* but if they call it "McDonalds super special sauce" then McDonalds will turn around and sue them.

Would you like to try again? or do you get my point yet

If you want to continue this analogy, it's more like McDonald's saying that I can't scrape off their ketchup and put on bbq sauce. CH isn't selling full models labeled as Space Marines. They're selling add-ons for kits made by GW.

McDonald's doesn't make a burger with BBQ. So, by using the Chapterhouse example of making a Meiotic Spore Pod... since GW doesn't make such a thing, Wendy's could make a burger with BBQ sauce and call it a McBarbeque. McBarbeque is not licensed by McDonalds. However, I would be willing to bet that if McDonald's would take this to court, they would surely win.

Chapterhouse has a full right to make aftermarket parts, but by calling them names that are clearly established by Games Workshop... they are walking a thin line. Producing a model such as the Pod or the Tervigon kit could have some believe it is associated with GW or perhaps licensed.

I think if CH had not used the GW names, they would be in the clear. I fully support the third party companies, but I can see where they went wrong.

Gibbsey wrote:...*sigh* but if they call it "McDonalds super special sauce" then McDonalds will turn around and sue them.

Would you like to try again? or do you get my point yet

I get your point, but you're wrong. CH isn't advertising they sell GW parts. They advertise that they sell parts that are compatible with GW models and can be used to modify them.

GW don't mention anything about fair use / fair dealing on the Conversions section, so I don't see that that is directly relevant.

They don't stop you from re-selling the art that you make from their art, either (converted and/or painted models), if you're not mass-producing them or casting them. It's a big grey area, like so much of their IP policy, and like so much of IP law.

HungryTaz wrote:Chapterhouse has a full right to make aftermarket parts, but by calling them names that are clearly established by Games Workshop... they are walking a thin line. Producing a model such as the Pod or the Tervigon kit could have some believe it is associated with GW or perhaps licensed.

That's where it gets confusing with Trademark, Copyright, and IP laws. GW hangs a lot on the IP laws, which are nebulous, because you're not dealing with a physical possession. It appears there's some merit to GW's suit, but there's also a lot of bullying being attempted.

There's times where it's acceptable to use a Trademarked phrase, even the complete logo. There's times where it's acceptable to use part of a copyrighted work, even to reproduce part of it. GW has consistently attempted, and generally been successful, to get the most sweeping and favorable rulings in regards to TM, Copyright, and IP laws. I also don't know how soundly they've ever been challenged.

dietrich wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:...*sigh* but if they call it "McDonalds super special sauce" then McDonalds will turn around and sue them.

Would you like to try again? or do you get my point yet

I get your point, but you're wrong. CH isn't advertising they sell GW parts. They advertise that they sell parts that are compatible with GW models and can be used to modify them.

"I get your point, but you're wrong. CH isn't advertising they sell GW parts."

Sooooo are you agree ing with my point but saying that CH isnt breaching IP? (then your still agreeing with my point)

Assuming you get my point (hopefully):
Okay now that you can at least get that my point is right now the question is do they use GW trademarked names or copyrighted designs (even in part that can get you in trouble). Many people he have said yes they do (and have actually changed a load of names).

then there is also the point that they are selling for profit derivitive works.

HungryTaz wrote:

If you want to continue this analogy, it's more like McDonald's saying that I can't scrape off their ketchup and put on bbq sauce. CH isn't selling full models labeled as Space Marines. They're selling add-ons for kits made by GW.

McDonald's doesn't make a burger with BBQ. So, by using the Chapterhouse example of making a Meiotic Spore Pod... since GW doesn't make such a thing, Wendy's could make a burger with BBQ sauce and call it a McBarbeque. McBarbeque is not licensed by McDonalds. However, I would be willing to bet that if McDonald's would take this to court, they would surely win.

Except the Meiotic Spore Pod and Tervigon both have artwork and descriptions in the Codex.

Just because there is no model produced by GW, does not mean that the specifics are not GW's IP.

Gibbsey wrote:Okay now that you can at least get that my point is right now the question is do they use GW trademarked names or copyrighted designs (even in part that can get you in trouble). Many people he have said yes they do (and have actually changed a load of names).

then there is also the point that they are selling for profit derivitive works.

dietrich wrote:There's times where it's acceptable to use a Trademarked phrase, even the complete logo. There's times where it's acceptable to use part of a copyrighted work, even to reproduce part of it. GW has consistently attempted, and generally been successful, to get the most sweeping and favorable rulings in regards to TM, Copyright, and IP laws.

There are times when it's acceptable to use someone else's trademark and copyright. Based on the opinions of several lawyers on this thread, there's some merit to GW's lawsuit, but also a nonsense in it. It's for a judge and jury to determine if CH violated GW's TM, Copyright, or IP. CH has repeatedly stated they have legal counsel stating they were not doing anything illegal. Getting sued in civil court doesn't mean you did anything illegal.

I have no problem with someone else making a profit. They offer a product that people are willing to purchase at an agreed upon price. That's how a free market is supposed to work. If GW did a better job meeting their customer expectations, the appeal of the third party products would be reduced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Just because there is no model produced by GW, does not mean that the specifics are not GW's IP.

Doesn't mean that it is either. IP issues have a lot of grey, because there's not a physical possesion. It's not like CH broke into GW HQ and stole a mold and then were selling models cast from it. How similar does a model have to be to violate the Copyright? Does it have to be an exact copy of artwork (which is what GW is claiming their models are covered under)? Can it be just like the artwork, but have a big fin sticking out of one side - does that make it different enough?

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!

I disagree.
I mean, let me clarify... I could take a dump in a bucket and call it art. So, really, ANYTHING could be 'art.'

That clarification aside, however, I don't think GW make pieces of art. I think they make *game pieces,* which are entirely different.

They mass produce tiny metal and plastic bits (According to the complaint, that's a distinctly British term. As as American, should I say "pieces?") that we, the end user, use and assemble as we see fit to represent little army men on a gameboard. The game on this board represents an imaginary battle in an imaginary place at an imaginary time.
I do not believe you play games with art. I believe it is solely for collecting and appreciating.

I went to the GW site. I pulled up the first listed model in the first listed category of the first listed army. It was the Sanguinor. This text is a direct copypasta from their site:

This blister contains one finely-detailed metal The Sanguinor, Exemplar of the Host. This four-part miniature includes an ornate, single-thruster jump pack. Model supplied with a 25mm round base.

(emphasis mine)

Even GW refers to them as models, not artwork, in their descriptions.

Eric

dietrich wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:Okay now that you can at least get that my point is right now the question is do they use GW trademarked names or copyrighted designs (even in part that can get you in trouble). Many people he have said yes they do (and have actually changed a load of names).

then there is also the point that they are selling for profit derivitive works.

dietrich wrote:There's times where it's acceptable to use a Trademarked phrase, even the complete logo. There's times where it's acceptable to use part of a copyrighted work, even to reproduce part of it. GW has consistently attempted, and generally been successful, to get the most sweeping and favorable rulings in regards to TM, Copyright, and IP laws.

There are times when it's acceptable to use someone else's trademark and copyright. Based on the opinions of several lawyers on this thread, there's some merit to GW's lawsuit, but also a nonsense in it. It's for a judge and jury to determine if CH violated GW's TM, Copyright, or IP. CH has repeatedly stated they have legal counsel stating they were not doing anything illegal. Getting sued in civil court doesn't mean you did anything illegal.

I have no problem with someone else making a profit. They offer a product that people are willing to purchase at an agreed upon price. That's how a free market is supposed to work. If GW did a better job meeting their customer expectations, the appeal of the third party products would be reduced.

Yep i agree with that completely, i was trying to show how they could get sued (especially if they are using GW trademarked names). We'll just have to wait to see what GW is specifically sueing over

dietrich wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Just because there is no model produced by GW, does not mean that the specifics are not GW's IP.

Doesn't mean that it is either. IP issues have a lot of grey, because there's not a physical possesion. It's not like CH broke into GW HQ and stole a mold and then were selling models cast from it. How similar does a model have to be to violate the Copyright? Does it have to be an exact copy of artwork (which is what GW is claiming their models are covered under)? Can it be just like the artwork, but have a big fin sticking out of one side - does that make it different enough?

Thats a bit of a grey area, but if they can show that it is similar enough they have a case.


Also is it just me or is Chapter House's news page hilarious, right under the law suit anouncement they have a "Doom is coming" announcement

MagickalMemories wrote:I mean, let me clarify... I could take a dump in a bucket and call it art. So, really, ANYTHING could be 'art.'

When I was at Penn State in the early 90's, some art student did performance art that consisted of him taking a dump. I don't know if he did it into a bucket or not, and I was never interested in going to his performances. Ah, that made me laugh and giggle.

dietrich wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:I mean, let me clarify... I could take a dump in a bucket and call it art. So, really, ANYTHING could be 'art.'

When I was at Penn State in the early 90's, some art student did performance art that consisted of him taking a dump. I don't know if he did it into a bucket or not, and I was never interested in going to his performances. Ah, that made me laugh and giggle.

Keeping it classy, Dakka. lol

Gibbsey wrote:Thats a bit of a grey area, but if they can show that it is similar enough they have a case.

They don't need to show it's similar to file a suit. GW isn't stupid, they obviously think they can win based on some of their claims, but you don't need to be 'right' to file a civil suit. GW likes to claim a lot of things, and their legal page takes pretty sweeping views and always in their favor. That doesn't mean it'll hold up in court. GW's MO is to be the school yard bully, and so far, no one has reacted by punching them in the nose. Most people have said, 'sorry' and gotten off the swing because GW said to. GW is looking to stiffle competition, because it's bad for them. They can't shut down anyone making plastic models, and they know that.

I'm interested to see how GW will prove that a model kit that looks similar to a pen and ink sketch is a violation of IP. Artistitic representations can become pretty similar without violating copyright. Isnt' there substantially more detail to the kit than to the sketch?

MagickalMemories, if they don't think their minis are art, they don't really have a whole lot of IP tied up in their minis... call it art, call it sculpture (they employ sculptors, and artists, right?), call it miniatures, it doesn't really matter, it's all creative works of art.

When I was at Penn State in the early 90's, some art student did performance art that consisted of him taking a dump.

I seem to remember hearing about this. It wasn't me.

Ian Sturrock wrote:MagickalMemories, if they don't think their minis are art, they don't really have a whole lot of IP tied up in their minis... call it art, call it sculpture (they employ sculptors, and artists, right?), call it miniatures, it doesn't really matter, it's all creative works of art.

I would agree that an individually sculpted piece intended solely for display, or even a limited copy run of them -again, intended only fir display- could qualify as art (with my previous clarification still intended here).
Once those items are mass produced with the intent to be used as toy representations of things on a game board/battle field, I don't believe they're considered "art" any longer.

And, to reiterate, I'm only stating my opinion of how things SHOULD be and am not pretending to imply that is what the law says.

I am, however, HOPING that is what is eventually ruled!

Eric

insaniak wrote:

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.

That is actually a very good point. And in part it may account for the somewhat dissimilar views that it appears seem to be held by Europeans versus Americans in this thread on this issue (with some notable exceptions in both camps).

My limited understanding of UK IP law is that it is slightly more restrictive than the U.S. in terms of the issues being discussed here. This also may account somewhat for the different attitudes and views that are espoused as well.

Also, as has been pointed out, GW's IP FAQ is GW's collective opinion. It is a more or less a one-sided argument of GW's views concerning the use of its products and IP. It should in no way be interpreted as an actual legal document or memorandum on the actual laws at hand.

I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on-line) so I can't comment too much on the specifics of this, but if I'm understanding the crack legal team of Janthkin, Polonius et al correctly, this is a very unsettled area of IP law (at least in the US)

If that's the case, I'd like to see this case make its way to court (that is, not be settled prior) just to establish some kind of ground work or precedent in this area. Mostly because it might reduce people like myself blatant legal speculating in future situations that might crop up with other bitz manufacturers such as maximini and so forth.

Personally, I feel there is plenty of room for both GW and CH bitz in the marketplace,so from a selfish point of view, I hope Chapterhouse survives so I can get a few "Dragon or Salamander Thunder Hammer" bitz in the future.

Kanluwen wrote: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.

Actually, according to GW, it wouldn't be okay. They don't want you mass-producing conversions (each conversion should be unique). Now, whether or not that is legal (irrespective of what GW wants) is one of the interesting questions around this case.

Ian Sturrock wrote:GW's IP page is very, very unclear as to what's illegal and what's not, though, and the conversions part is probably the most schizophrenic part of the page, as many people have remarked on before:

First, it should be noted that GW's terms & conditions page are not necessarily an accurate statement of the law (any more than the NFL's "Any other use of this broadcast, or descriptions or accounts thereof, is prohibited" is accurate - they have no right to stop you from talking about how the Vikings mistreated the Eagles). (Not directed at Ian in particular; many people seem to get this, but I wanted to use my NFL analogy.)

"Conversions are a major aspect of the hobby, although in intellectual property terms, they also constitute a major infringement."

What does that mean, exactly? Far as I can tell, they're saying that despite encouraging their you to create new art with the stuff they sell you, they want you to recognise that doing so is technically illegal... plus, of course, they want to provide you with strict rules as to how you can and can't create new art, despite any new art you create being technically illegal. "It's OK to infringe our IP, as long as you do it this way." As soon as you say "It's OK to infringe our IP," though -- aren't you failing to defend your IP?

Couple things here. First, GW has the right to grant us some license to do stuff with their IP; in this case, I read their terms as allowing their customers to make "unique" conversions, with some typically-confusing disclaimers and limitations on that license (they must have had their rules guys right their legal text, too). Second, the only form of IP they are obligated to protect-or-lose is trademark; their copyright in their individual models is not threatened by allowing people to make conversions.

(Disclaimer: Still not your lawyer, still just offering my opinion, which is still not intended as legal advice; hire a lawyer, if you need legal advice.)

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote: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.

Actually, according to GW, it wouldn't be okay. They don't want you mass-producing conversions (each conversion should be unique). Now, whether or not that is legal (irrespective of what GW wants) is one of the interesting questions around this case.

So sculpting 20 peices for personal use is mass-producing?

lol, next day, 7 pages later, Kan still arguing with everyone in sight... LOL

I love Dakka!

MajorTom11 wrote:lol, next day, 7 pages later, Kan still arguing with everyone in sight... LOL

I love Dakka!

actually we're all arguing about IP law...

Gibbsey wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Kanluwen wrote: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.

Actually, according to GW, it wouldn't be okay. They don't want you mass-producing conversions (each conversion should be unique). Now, whether or not that is legal (irrespective of what GW wants) is one of the interesting questions around this case.

So sculpting 20 peices for personal use is mass-producing?

"Mass-producing" isn't one of GW's terms; they want each conversion to be a "one-time, unique (masterpiece) of hobby goodness." Which is probably the most interesting term I've seen in (what could be loosely termed) a license agreement ever. Good luck interpreting that language, courts!

Again, I take no position on whether or not they can limit you in precisely this fashion; that's the issue that I find most interesting about this case (with apologies to everyone involved with CH for the legal vulture-like behavior).

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

Unfortunately for CH this looks like it will be decided on a 2+